Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Exorcet]

You know, I've never met or heard of a scientist that truly wanted to make a difference, whose motivation was material. Most would give up material in hopes of accomplishing what they want.

I'd bet they all have material wants. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have truly altruistic desires right along with those wants.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'd bet they all have material wants. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have truly altruistic desires right along with those wants.

Their priority is achievement, and their achieving it isn't conditional to their material wants being met.

edit

We know what the principle is, but without the logistics they never become more.

I didn't post here to argue logistics, I posted to know if @Famine or others agrees with the principle.

 

[Danoff]

You wouldn't get anything that's finite, nobody would. Efforts will be made to make it infinite.

...and you've violated economics. You've just succinctly demonstrated that you're making up nonsense.

 

[Famine]

I didn't post here to argue logistics, I posted to know if @Famine or others agrees with the principle.

No. You can't have a meritocracy without tangible reward - or, as an alternative, punishment, but that rarely goes so well. Ever tried to train an animal?

I was also trying to get you to see how it's untenable anyway - if you'd answered the question about the man who improved his house we might have got somewhere.

 

[BHRxRacer]

No. You can't have a meritocracy without tangible reward

I didn't ask if it's feasible. I ask if you agree with the principle. Still no?

I've already said it's not gonna happen here:

- or, as an alternative, punishment, but that rarely goes so well. Ever tried to train an animal?

But we're presumably above animals. At least in terms of how we can co-exist.

I was also trying to get you to see how it's untenable anyway - if you'd answered the question about the man who improved his house we might have got somewhere.

You can't make your house better because you'd require material. You can't get material that nobody else can't get. If you mean better styled, like colors and ****, yeah sure. It won't be returned to "equal" standards.


edit

added link

edit

You want to be able to paint your house purple? Is that it? rofl.

 

[Famine]

I didn't ask if it's feasible. I ask if you agree with the principle.

I didn't answer whether it was feasible. I answered whether I agree with the principle.

Still no?

Still no.

But we're presumably above animals. At least in terms of how we can co-exist.

We operate off the same instincts especially when we're children. Children who watch good behaviour and performance ignored - or punished - while bad behaviour and ignorance is rewarded learn to behave badly and remain ignorant. That's what you want from "everyone must be equal" schools.

You can't make your house better because you'd require material. You can't get material that nobody else can't get.

You said that everyone has equal share of materials. That means that everyone has the same materials and it's simply a matter of labour to do something different with it.

A pile of bricks can be a garage or a house - it depends what you do with it.

If you mean better styled, like colors and ****, yeah sure. It won't be returned to "equal" standards.

So people can improve their life through labour. But then they aren't equal - and their neighbours see they aren't equal. They want to know why that dude has what they don't.

Your "everyone is equal" society isn't working too well right now, all because of one bloke's imagination and labour. The only way to keep everyone equal is to return that man's house to its original standard - and of course punish him for his disobedience.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I didn't answer whether it was feasible. I answered whether I agree with the principle.Still no.

That's all I wanted to know.

We operate off the same instincts especially when we're children. Children who watch good behaviour and performance ignored - or punished - while bad behaviour and ignorance is rewarded learn to behave badly and remain ignorant. That's what you want from "everyone must be equal" schools.

Good behaviour and performance will be rewarded. The rewards can be certificates, or have their picture on an honour board. Isn't this exactly what happens now? What kind of rewards do you want them to have?

"everyone must be equal"

I think you're confused. Not everyone is created equal, and not everyone ends up equal. Through nature or nurture, we're all different. Equality here will only be applied through material, to satisfy physiological needs etc.

You said that everyone has equal share of materials. That means that everyone has the same materials and it's simply a matter of labour to do something different with it.

You don't build your own house. Ideally you'd have the best designers in that job, and they'll build you a house however you like it as long as you use the same materials as everyone else.

A pile of bricks can be a garage or a house - it depends what you do with it.So people can improve their life through labour. But then they aren't equal - and their neighbours see they aren't equal. They want to know why that dude has what they don't.

You can request a redesign to make it look like your neighbors'.


What machine/browser are you using? Whenever I edit your text everything gets messed up. Hacker <.<

 

[Famine]

Good behaviour and performance will be rewarded. The rewards can be certificates, or have their picture on an honour board. Isn't this exactly what happens now? What kind of rewards do you want them to have?

Let's say a child graduates from The Everyone Must Be Equal Education System (having actually learned something, somehow) and his two identified skills are orthopedic surgery and knitting.

Knitting is a three week training course after which he works 20 hours a week knitting things in a nice knitting centre, never under any stress.

Orthopaedic surgery is a seven year training course at 70 hours a week including residency, in a high-stress environment where lives are literally in the balance. After that he works a minimum of 50 hours a week, with some surgeries taking 10 hours at a time.

How would you reward him for going into surgery? He gets a certificate every now and then to say "Great, you're a surgeon" until he dies aged 40 from an aneurysm or by suicide brought on by stress - in the same house as his next-door neighbour who's a 20hr a week knitter?

What you need is some kind of system where the harder someone works, in a more skilled profession with more risk to themselves and others and more stress, the more of... something... they get and the something can be used or exchanged to make their life when they're not working. Hmm... what could that be?

I think you're confused.

Not at all - I've thought it through... you haven't.

Not everyone is created equal, and not everyone ends up equal. Through nature or nurture, we're all different. Equality here will only be applied through material, to satisfy physiological needs etc.

Okay, you said that literally every resource would be divided amongst everyone equally (I want my 0.6g of plutonium!) and everyone has equal housing, equal healthcare (how does that work? I get some chemotherapy drugs because someone else has stage 3 cancer?) and so on.

You have everyone living in the same type of house (regardless of how many children they have - those guys with 0 kids will have plenty of space but the folks with 10 might suffer) and driving the same type of car - and owning the same amount of everything.

So I'll ask the question again. What happens when an individual uses his allotted resources to make something his neighbours don't have? Is it taken off him so that everyone is equal again? If not, your state has just failed to keep everyone equal. If so your state will stagnate through lack of innovation and invention. Either way, it's dead in three generations.

You don't build your own house. Ideally you'd have the best designers in that job, and they'll build you a house however you like it as long as you use the same materials as everyone else.

And where do the house designers and builders live? Oh yes, in houses they've designed and built.

Incidentally, I'm neither a house designer (architect) nor builder, but have the skill set to improve my house myself. Would your state stop me from doing that?

What machine/browser are you using? Whenever I edit your text everything gets messed up. Hacker <.<

It's because you're not closing the bold and colour tags properly.

 

[BHRxRacer]

OK! So now we've agreed to disagree on the principle. The semantics arguments are endless, but let's limit it to 2 posts okay?

How would you reward him for going into surgery? He gets a certificate every now and then to say "Great, you're a surgeon" until he dies aged 40 from an aneurysm or by suicide brought on by stress - in the same house as his next-door neighbour who's a 20hr a week knitter?

There'd be something like employee of the month in every field, they can compete to achieve that. Also, some fields will obviously be more highly regarded than others.

What you need is some kind of system where the harder someone works, in a more skilled profession with more risk to themselves and others and more stress, the more of... something... they get and the something can be used or exchanged to make their life when they're not working. Hmm... what could that be?

That's not a flaw of the system, that's a flaw in humans, if their hard work is conditional to materialistic reward.

You have everyone living in the same type of house (regardless of how many children they have - those guys with 0 kids will have plenty of space but the folks with 10 might suffer) and driving the same type of car - and owning the same amount of everything.

Oh no no no. There'd be a variety of vehicles/houses suitable for every need. You get to choose

Did I mention population density control btw? I didn't mention population density control. Yeah, there's that too.

So I'll ask the question again. What happens when an individual uses his allotted resources to make something his neighbours don't have? Is it taken off him so that everyone is equal again?

Like what? Turn ashes into gold? If he managed to invent something new out of the material that's accessible to everyone, it'd be named after him and then everyone can choose to do it too.

Oh and by resources/material, I didn't mean them at an atomic level. I mean the final products. Chairs, etc. And no, before you ask, there isn't one design. There's a bunch. Whoever designs the most demanded chair or whatever, is also recognized for it.

If not, your state has just failed to keep everyone equal.

I've already talked about what "equal" means.

Incidentally, I'm neither a house designer (architect) nor builder, but have the skill set to improve my house myself. Would your state stop me from doing that?

No. You'd be recognized for it, if it's something everybody else liked. If you don't care what people think of it, you can keep it anyway.

It's because you're not closing the bold and colour tags properly.

I use RTE. Too lazy to manually tag everything. Hacker

 

[Famine]

OK! So now we've agreed to disagree on the principle. The semantics arguments are endless, but let's limit it to 2 posts okay?

Nope.

There'd be something like employee of the month in every field, they can compete to achieve that.

So a good knitter gets the same reward as a good surgeon. Pity the surgeon's dead from stress/suicide.

Also, some fields will obviously be more highly regarded than others.

How? We're 24 hours in and you still haven't explained this.

That's not a flaw of the system, that's a flaw in humans, if their hard work is conditional to materialistic reward.

Who lives under the system? Is it dogs? Centaurs? No, it's humans. If the system doesn't work for humans, it's flawed.

You didn't answer the question, by the way. Why would you go into a job that requires 120 times more training and 4 times the work to half you lifespan (and rob your children of a father) when the easier one is equally available to you?

Oh no no no. There'd be a variety of vehicles/houses suitable for every need. You get to choose

Sounds like materialism to me...

What if everyone chooses the biggest one that takes more resources to create?

Did I mention population density control btw? I didn't mention population density control. Yeah, there's that too.

Ahh, your state not only requires equality but allotted birth and death rates. Well, when courting fascism, why not go the whole hog.

I hope there's no abortion for people who have too many pregnancies though. That'd be most unfortunate.

Like what? Turn ashes into gold? If he managed to invent something new out of the material that's accessible to everyone, it'd be named after him and then everyone can choose to do it too.

Nothing so complex.

It could be something as simple as a man happening upon a log and using it to create decking for his garden with his woodworking skills.

Oh and by resources/material, I didn't mean them at an atomic level. I mean the final products. Chairs, etc. And no, before you ask, there isn't one design. There's a bunch. Whoever designs the most demanded chair or whatever, is also recognized for it.

Why would anyone demand a chair? That's materialism!

I've already talked about what "equal" means.

Yes. Apparently it means "not equal after day zero".

Look ahead two generations - assuming everyone's still alive because no-one's doing vital, high-stress jobs. You've either got rampant inequality (by your terms) because people profit from their ideas and those who don't have ideas can't profit or your state is keeping everyone equal by force and no ideas are had because of the force the state wields. By the third generation either everyone's dead, the state is dead (through stagnation) or everyone's back to where they were before day 0...

I use RTE. Too lazy to manually tag everything. Hacker

Highlight everything and hit the "Tx" button before you answer.

 

[FoolKiller]

Did I mention population density control btw? I didn't mention population density control. Yeah, there's that too.

It's a Brave New World!


On @Famine's question about improving a house. You say anyone has access to a new design. Even if created by the one homeowner? What if he didn't draw it out, but has a good mind and built it based on a rough estimate in his head? I can build a square room without blueprints. My wife and I built a rollaway can holder that fits between my fridge and cabinets. I made the measurements, asked the guy at the lumber store for the right size pieces of wood and of what type, went home, put it together, and it has been fully functional for over three years now. No designs drawn.

What if my neighbor sees it and wants one? I can't give any ruling agency a design. It's 100% up to my neighbor's own ability to build it. Also, I am not a furniture designer. It isn't my job to design it. How do you keep us equal?


Even more importantly, what guarantees I don't take an axe and start cutting down trees and making them into lumber. If you don't let me have an axe I know how to make one using materials found in nature. Suddenly, I am putting a new floor on my house. I am well beyond my wood material ration and none of my neighbors could do what I was doing, or pay someone to with their material rations. I just created my own extra material wealth.

 

[VRracingfan]

That won't really help. I've been very, very clear...No.Actually, yes.I'm not. I'm keen for you to prove your claim that we don't. That's how things work - make a claim, support claim, not make a claim, demand others disprove it.Nope.I'm not. I'm keen for you to prove your claim that we don't. That's how things work - make a claim, support claim, not make a claim, demand others disprove it.That's not really true but I'll let it slide because it's not really relevant either.It's incredibly easy if the state is constitutionally limited from having that power.If there is no state there is no law, and if there is no law it's a matter of time until an overwhelming body of force creates law (by force) which is not necessarily constitutionally limited from interfering in the free market. Anarchy may seem like democracy at first, but really it's just a precursor to stratocracy (or autocracy).Not at all. Capitalism is emergent from the rights of people to bear the fruits of their own labour - it's merely a facet of a fair and just society. Rights need protecting from those who would remove them and this needs a constitutionally limited state to provide a body of force domestically (law and the police) and internationally (armed forces).I haven't dismissed anything. You've not provided me with anything to dismiss.And that's what you call a citation is it? Not exactly the Harvard System is it?

I'll now assume "The Spirit Level" is a paper rather than an album by Pink Floyd or a film starring Jennifer Aniston. In what journal was "The Spirit Level" published and peer-reviewed so I can look it up?

Also, in socialism you can bear the fruits of your own labour, just everyone is allowed to too and vice versa.
Constitutions are pretty easily broken, look at gun laws in America.
How aren't you a capitalist if you support an absolute free market? Talk about not being clear.
I was claiming that I have not seen any evidence to suggest that a state is just and necessary
You haven't been clear at all. I can't be bothered with talking to you on this anymore, if you want to know what the book called 'The Spirit Level' is then you can look it up and do your own reading on it, I can't be bothered to spell the whole book out for you. You can get the Book from your local library, you can find excerpts online, you can find almost anything you want to about it if you search, 'The Spirit Level - Why equality is better for everyone'. I'd also rather talk with someone who isn't quite so patronising. I noticed this a long time ago from your posts before when I used to go on GTP a lot more.

How much you're payed should be determined by what kind of work you do and how much it benefits society. A manager of sales at a soda company probably works as hard as manager of structural engineering in an aviation company. I think we both know who's work is much more important.

So how does a Footballer benefit society more than a doctor or a surgeon?

I don't recall ever saying that, but if I did I do apologize. They should get the same opportunities. This is possible by trying to help education in poor areas and lower tuition rates, but that doesn't help if the student doesn't try. The tools to living a comfortable middle class life should be provided, those that don't take it lose their chance. It would help if people stopped reaching to become a 1%, that just will not happen.

But that still doesn't provide an equal opportunity. Other kids have access to private schools who have closer connections with the very top Universities and as a result get more kids in.

It took so long because the entire system was fairly new at that point.

I'm afraid that's just not true, the reason that it takes so long is because the political system is not set up fairly and doesn't represent the majority but a minority with more power.

Who makes the rules, the workers? I assume so because you argue about the removal of state.

First of all the workers of a company that over the corporate heads are like a mini group. They have all the power in the business and effectively make themselves the corporate heads. They're human just like the people at the top, so what stops them from following and just hiring more workers to do their work?

They don't hire more people because that costs the company more money. Also, if that means other people do their work then they lose their power.

There is an airliner. They have a First Class, and Economy Class. First class is expensive and served to the very wealthy, because they can prop it up. It has many luxurious items. Economy class is cramped and small with uncomfortable seats and okay drinks. The Economy class complains, why do they get first class and we don't? Everyone should be first class! So the airliner say, "okay, let us make everyone equal." The expensive double wide seats are set to uncomfortable, un-reclinable triple wide. All the luxurious items are removed because they cost to much to give to everyone but those who pay, and that would not be equal. Everyone is now first class.

If they are all paying the same then who cares. I have no problem with that, they can now fit more people on the plane rather than giving a couple of people far better service. It's like on the railways. You get several empty first class coaches and lots of people shoved into economy when they could easily fit into first class. Why not have more economy class? Because they make more money that way.

Socialism and Communism are equality for all. Equality in misery.

Whereas under capitalism we are unequally miserable. In a libertarian socialist country people would be far more free, a lot less miserable.

Then please explain why things like child labor laws, slavery, and minimum wage haven't been taken away? In fact some of these laws have increased in strength. If they can work, then so can other socialized ideas.

Because it's a good way of controlling people by giving them the minimum that they can get away with, Bismarck did it and many others have too. It's like when Nike try and avoid child labour now people have found out about it, they still pay their workers nothing.

 

[Famine]

So how does a Footballer benefit society more than a doctor or a surgeon?

We value our free time and we reward those who provide us with entertainment.

Also, in socialism you can bear the fruits of your own labour, just everyone is allowed to too and vice versa.

The bolded word makes everything before it inaccurate. If other people are entitled to any part of your efforts, you are not entitled to it...

Constitutions are pretty easily broken, look at gun laws in America.

Oddly, the US Constitution says nothing about guns per se, but yes, constitutions can be broken. They shouldn't be - it's just that when the people (which is who the constitution is designed to protect) start thinking that they are entitled to the fruits of other people's labour, they start exercising majority vote to break the constitution.

This is why the ideal system of governance is a benevolent dictatorship. Then the rights of a minority are never subject to majority vote.

How aren't you a capitalist if you support an absolute free market? Talk about not being clear.

It's a political compass, not a political spectrum.

I was claiming that I have not seen any evidence to suggest that a state is just and necessary

You seem to be forgetting your very first claim, which, given that I've literally just reminded you of it in the post you quoted, is a little inexcusable. Here it is (again):

What we need is an abolition of private property, mass redistribution of wealth and of course the removal of the state.

That's a claim. Now you provide the evidence for it. It's no-one else's job to provide evidence to counter your claim.

You haven't been clear at all. I can't be bothered with talking to you on this anymore, if you want to know what the book called 'The Spirit Level' is then you can look it up and do your own reading on it, I can't be bothered to spell the whole book out for you. You can get the Book from your local library, you can find excerpts online, you can find almost anything you want to about it if you search, 'The Spirit Level - Why equality is better for everyone'.

Well, we've almost reached the levels of a citation. It's now clear that there's a book called "The Spirit Level" which you believe supports your claim.

Unfortunately I asked for peer-reviewed research. Books are not that.

I'd also rather talk with someone who isn't quite so patronising. I noticed this a long time ago from your posts before when I used to go on GTP a lot more.

I'm sure you'd also rather talk to someone who accepts what you say willingly, unchallenged and never ask you to support your claims. That isn't how discussion and debate works.

If you want to spout off unchallenged, start a blog. If you want to have your thoughts and opinions questioned, challenged and have them evolve into better, more logically sound opinions, enter a discussion about them. It seems you want the former and have made the mistake of doing the latter - and I'm afraid that redrawing your parameters while pretending you've forgotten the original ones, ignoring questions that inconvenience you and, ultimately, deciding that you don't have to support a thing because you can dream up some character flaws in those that dare question you are mere distractions from the point.

And stop double-posting.

 

[VRracingfan]

I'm not against being challenged, I just don't like being patronised, other people manage to avoid it quite well.
I thought double post was when you post the same thing twice, not responding to two different people.

 

[Famine]

I'm not against being challenged, I just don't like being patronised, other people manage to avoid it quite well.

One of the things about the internet (or at least written communication on it - like internet forums) is that tone is quite hard to read. Short of being outright insulting or careful use of certain words and emphasis, tone is largely inferred rather than implied. That means me being patronising is in your head, rather than mine*.

You're choosing to read it that way. I don't know why, but it clearly suits you to do so.

Still, you don't want to support your claim, you don't want to provide peer-reviewed research to back it up and you do want to duck out with a parting, pithy slight to my character that exists in how you read what I write. These speak more clearly for your claim than your claim did itself.

I thought double post was when you post the same thing twice, not responding to two different people.

https://www.gtplanet.net/faq/#double_posting

 

[Crash]

How much you're payed should be determined by what kind of work you do and how much it benefits society. A manager of sales at a soda company probably works as hard as manager of structural engineering in an aviation company. I think we both know who's work is much more important.

No, the pay should be based on the demand and supply of the labor force.

So how does a Footballer benefit society more than a doctor or a surgeon?

Depends on who you ask.

But if you don't want footballers to be paid more than doctors, then stop paying attention to or caring about football, and get the vast majority of the people around you to do the same. When the demand for football goes away, then their pay would be merely a pittance, as no one would care enough to pay them to play.

If you talk football, watch football, care about football, then you're part of the problem.

Unless you want more material. More material than others, to show off or feel superior. If that's the case, then I have to tell you that I don't particularly like this kind of mentality.

If you are really against material, then you are free to give away everything you have and become a Franciscan monk or go live in destitute poverty in Africa.

Good behaviour and performance will be rewarded. The rewards can be certificates, or have their picture on an honour board. Isn't this exactly what happens now? What kind of rewards do you want them to have?

So next paycheck, you're going to tell your employer that they don't need to pay you, but rather just give you a certificate and a picture on the honor board, right?

You don't build your own house. Ideally you'd have the best designers in that job, and they'll build you a house however you like it as long as you use the same materials as everyone else.

"You can have your house however you like it, as long as it's the same as everyone else's."

There'd be something like employee of the month in every field, they can compete to achieve that. Also, some fields will obviously be more highly regarded than others.

Under your system, why do I care to compete to be the employee of month if it doesn't change my life in any way? Whether I am employee of the month or not, I would still have exactly what everyone else has.

If they are all paying the same then who cares. I have no problem with that, they can now fit more people on the plane rather than giving a couple of people far better service. It's like on the railways. You get several empty first class coaches and lots of people shoved into economy when they could easily fit into first class. Why not have more economy class? Because they make more money that way.

So why can't someone who values the additional comfort of first class pay for first class? Why should they be prevented from enjoying something like that with their money? Why should they be forced to travel economy? Just so the people who don't value first class enough to pay for it feel better about themselves? How is that fair?

--

In a world where everyone is equal, there will be no car enthusiasts. No Ferraris, Lamborghinis or Paganis. Everyone would be driving a Toyota Camry.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Nope.

I don't have the time or energy to keep repeating myself. You said you don't agree with the principle, why argue the semantics?

So a good knitter gets the same reward as a good surgeon. Pity the surgeon's dead from stress/suicide.

No. The best surgeon gets the same reward as the best knitter. Being able to tell people you're the best at what you do, as well as saving people's lives, ought to be worth the extra stress.

How? We're 24 hours in and you still haven't explained this.

It depends on the significance of your work, like if you're a researcher and you've cured cancer. If you've done something that can change the world, you'd get more love

Who lives under the system? Is it dogs? Centaurs? No, it's humans. If the system doesn't work for humans, it's flawed.

So every time someone breaks the no-murder law, it's not the human's fault. Just the system's. Awesome.

You didn't answer the question, by the way. Why would you go into a job that requires 120 times more training and 4 times the work to half you lifespan (and rob your children of a father) when the easier one is equally available to you?

Altruism.

Sounds like materialism to me...
What if everyone chooses the biggest one that takes more resources to create?

You won't be given a 3 bedroom house unless there's more than 3 people living with you.

Ahh, your state not only requires equality but allotted birth and death rates. Well, when courting fascism, why not go the whole hog.

I hope there's no abortion for people who have too many pregnancies though. That'd be most unfortunate.

So you're anti abortion. Who would've thought

Nothing so complex.
It could be something as simple as a man happening upon a log and using it to create decking for his garden with his woodworking skills.

That log is public property though

Why would anyone demand a chair? That's materialism!

I haven't thought about that. How dare they! From now on, everyone works, sleeps and sits on the ground. Unpaved.

Yes. Apparently it means "not equal after day zero".

No, it means having an equal share of everything distributable.

Look ahead two generations - assuming everyone's still alive because no-one's doing vital, high-stress jobs. You've either got rampant inequality (by your terms) because people profit from their ideas and those who don't have ideas can't profit or your state is keeping everyone equal by force and no ideas are had because of the force the state wields. By the third generation either everyone's dead, the state is dead (through stagnation) or everyone's back to where they were before day 0...

See above for "inequality".

Highlight everything and hit the "Tx" button before you answer.

I'm a lazy person, and you're still a hacker

It's a Brave New World!

Too brave for humans.

On @Famine's question about improving a house. You say anyone has access to a new design. Even if created by the one homeowner? What if he didn't draw it out, but has a good mind and built it based on a rough estimate in his head? I can build a square room without blueprints. My wife and I built a rollaway can holder that fits between my fridge and cabinets. I made the measurements, asked the guy at the lumber store for the right size pieces of wood and of what type, went home, put it together, and it has been fully functional for over three years now. No designs drawn.

You'd have to give reason why you need the material required. When you tell them why, and you can't draw worth a ****, your final product can be taken pictures of and shown to people that want to replicate it.

You're allowed as many renovations as there are material enough for everybody to do the same.

Even more importantly, what guarantees I don't take an axe and start cutting down trees and making them into lumber.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most countries today. Fail.

If you are really against material, then you are free to give away everything you have and become a Franciscan monk or go live in destitute poverty in Africa.

To who?

So next paycheck, you're going to tell your employer that they don't need to pay you, but rather just give you a certificate and a picture on the honor board, right?

If that applies to everybody, and all my basic needs are covered by the government, yes.

Under your system, why do I care to compete to be the employee of month if it doesn't change my life in any way? Whether I am employee of the month or not, I would still have exactly what everyone else has.

Altruism

So why can't someone who values the additional comfort of first class pay for first class? Why should they be prevented from enjoying something like that with their money? Why should they be forced to travel economy? Just so the people who don't value first class enough to pay for it feel better about themselves? How is that fair?


In a world where everyone is equal, there will be no car enthusiasts. No Ferraris, Lamborghinis or Paganis. Everyone would be driving a Toyota Camry.

What car do you drive now? How many people own Paganis?

Oh, and if everyone worked hard and did their best, the country would have enough resources to let everyone travel first class.

 

[niky]

Altruism.

Good luck with that.

While a society that encourages altruism can be quite successful, a society that demands it without reward isn't.

Does altruism keep the altruist alive longer? Nope.

In a society where everyone is given equal care and equal opportunity to reproduce, does altruism benefit the altruist's family? Does it help keep his offspring alive after he's killed himself working 36 hour shifts at the hospital? Nope.

As Famine pointed out, you have to pay people in high-stress, difficult jobs more. Because their life expectancy and the chances of dying are greater.

A doctor is not more likely to reproduce than a menial worker. In fact, quite the opposite. If there's no extra material reward that will give his/her children a competitive edge, you will, in a few generations, whittle down the families with the "doctor gene" (yes, I'm going there) down to almost nothing.

By giving the same rewards to everyone, regardless of effort, you are encouraging the lowest common denominator. There is no reproductive advantage in exerting more effort than required or creating innovation. Such a society is doomed to failure. Even the communists had to give extra rewards to their top politicians and scientists to encourage excellence.

 

[Imari]

Wow, someone who actually believes an entire society could be founded on the concept of altruism.

I think three generations before collapse is a massive overestimate, in that case. About a week and a half might be more like it.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Good luck with that.

While a society that encourages altruism can be quite successful, a society that demands it without reward isn't.

Does altruism keep the altruist alive longer? Nope.

In a society where everyone is given equal care and equal opportunity to reproduce, does altruism benefit the altruist's family? Does it help keep his offspring alive after he's killed himself working 36 hour shifts at the hospital? Nope.

As Famine pointed out, you have to pay people in high-stress, difficult jobs more. Because their life expectancy and the chances of dying are greater.

A doctor is not more likely to reproduce than a menial worker. In fact, quite the opposite. If there's no extra material reward that will give his/her children a competitive edge, you will, in a few generations, whittle down the families with the "doctor gene" (yes, I'm going there) down to almost nothing.

By giving the same rewards to everyone, regardless of effort, you are encouraging the lowest common denominator. There is no reproductive advantage in exerting more effort than required or creating innovation. Such a society is doomed to failure. Even the communists had to give extra rewards to their top politicians and scientists to encourage excellence.

Wow, someone who actually believes an entire society could be founded on the concept of altruism.

I think three generations before collapse is a massive overestimate, in that case. About a week and a half might be more like it.

Sorry to break the news but:

My idea is far from ever happening, I'm aware of that.

 

[niky]

You're aware that it won't happen. We're explaining why it wouldn't succeed even if it did happen.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You're aware that it won't happen. We're explaining why it wouldn't succeed even if it did happen.

I didn't need that explanation. I already know it. That doesn't mean it's the system's fault.

I know damn well how materialistic the human species is, and I think it's better if it ceases to exist

 

[Imari]

I didn't need that explanation. I already know it. That doesn't mean it's the system's fault.

Huh?

It does mean it's the system's fault. It means it's a terrible system for organising humans.

Just because it might be a great system for organising the Altruistic Marsh Bogglers of Flogulon Six, doesn't make it any better of an idea for humans.

Herding cows seems to work great, but I don't see people recommending that all businesses should convert to the "office in a pasture" model. To stick with the animal theme, it's horses for courses.

Even worse, there's no known sentient being that this system of yours would work for, at least that I'm aware of. It's a complete pie in the sky.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Even worse, there's no known sentient being that this system of yours would work for, at least that I'm aware of. It's a complete pie in the sky.

That's the thing. Some Humans tend to imply we're "civilized" enough for it to work, as if we're any better than animals at co-existing.

 

[niky]

I know damn well how materialistic the human species is, and I think it's better if it ceases to exist

It isn't even a matter of humans being materialistic.

It's a matter of survival.

From a completely logical point of view, you must give material concessions or greater reproductive benefits and bonuses to the more productive members of a species. Otherwise, you encourage mediocracy or non-survival traits.

If you encourage them enough, the species, as a whole, dies out when your utopian period of plenty runs dry.

Again... intelligence and work ethic can be trained, but they're partially innate.

If the members of your species carry the "doctor" gene are not given material benefits that will support their having more children than members without it, then, thanks to their decreased life span, they will have fewer children. Who, becoming doctors, will have even fewer children, who will have fewer children, etcetera ad nauseum.

In the end, you end up with a society without doctors.

-

Rewarding mediocrity and excellence equally encourages mediocrity. If only for the simple reason that you're giving utter mediocrity the same survival value as excellence. And those who live a simple, unstressed life live longer and have more children... especially considering how much free time they have due to their lower work load.

In the end, to make such a society survive, you have to practice eugenics. Which a.) isn't very nice. and b.) isn't very egalitarian.

 

[BHRxRacer]

It isn't even a matter of humans being materialistic.

It's a matter of survival.

From a completely logical point of view, you must give material concessions or greater reproductive benefits and bonuses to the more productive members of a species. Otherwise, you encourage mediocracy or non-survival traits.

If you encourage them enough, the species, as a whole, dies out when your utopian period of plenty runs dry.

Again... intelligence and work ethic can be trained, but they're partially innate.

If the members of your species carry the "doctor" gene are not given material benefits that will support their having more children than members without it, then, thanks to their decreased life span, they will have fewer children. Who, becoming doctors, will have even fewer children, who will have fewer children, etcetera ad nauseum.

In the end, you end up with a society without doctors.

-

Rewarding mediocrity and excellence equally encourages mediocrity. If only for the simple reason that you're giving utter mediocrity the same survival value as excellence. And those who live a simple, unstressed life live longer and have more children... especially considering how much free time they have due to their lower work load.

In the end, to make such a society survive, you have to practice eugenics. Which a.) isn't very nice. and b.) isn't very egalitarian.

You would only need to give reproductive benefits and bonuses in a society where reproduction is at risk. Everyone will have enough to survive. Reproduction would NOT be at risk. If they trust everyone to do their job, they will all survive. Unless of course, it's not about survival, but about showing off your extra material.

I've also denied that mediocrity and excellence were equally rewarded. Only excellence will be rewarded, in recognition not material.

Oh and btw, true doctors, treat the sick even without pay. Isn't that a part of their creed?

 

[niky]

Have you ever worked in a high-stress, high-demand occupation? Reproduction is at risk if you run the chance of a heart-attack and high-blood pressure in your thirties.

Recognition doesn't feed your unborn (errh... never to be born?) children.

Same goes for the police, the military, firefighters, etcetera. You need to provide benefits concommitant to the risks. Otherwise, you will find fewer and fewer willing to take the risks as time goes by. And that's not because of selfishness. That's because those with the risk-taking gene will eventually die out.

-

Doctors take an oath to do what's best for the patient and to do no harm. Yes, that sometimes requires performing emergency medical care for free.

Nowhere in any oath does it say they are required to provide all services for free. Try spending a dozen years of your life and about half a million dollars in tuition first, then let me know whether you're willing to work completely pro bono.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Have you ever worked in a high-stress, high-demand occupation?

Yes.

Before you ask, I try keeping my personal life personal and away from the internet.

Reproduction is at risk if you run the chance of a heart-attack and high-blood pressure in your thirties.

And material rewards will fix that?

Recognition doesn't feed your unborn (errh... never to be born?) children.

But the government will.

Try spending a dozen years of your life and about half a million dollars in tuition first, then let me know whether you're willing to work completely pro bono.

You'd be surprised.

I'm not going to share things from my personal life but I'll leave you with a small example from here. I don't know if you remember, or even knew about it, but I posted pics and videos of GT6 when it was leaked here. I could've monetized my channel and made at least something out of it. Know why I didn't? Because then the videos would include ads and inconvenience people.

 

[Azuremen]

I don't have the time or energy to keep repeating myself. You said you don't agree with the principle, why argue the semantics?

Because it isn't semantics, it is you fundamentally failing to grasp human nature.

No. The best surgeon gets the same reward as the best knitter. Being able to tell people you're the best at what you do, as well as saving people's lives, ought to be worth the extra stress.

Most doctors I know did go into the field because they wanted to help people, but the huge pay also is incentive for the insane hours they work. Getting a piece of paper saying "you're #1" isn't really going to justify the time invested to most people. And that piece of paper removes everyone being equal.

It depends on the significance of your work, like if you're a researcher and you've cured cancer. If you've done something that can change the world, you'd get more love

Not everyone is a fan of The Beatles.

Altruism.

Are you sure you're not a teenager just getting into college, maybe taking some sociology class?

You won't be given a 3 bedroom house unless there's more than 3 people living with you.

Then people don't have equal things and thus aren't equal.

That log is public property though

What if people grow the wood in their yard/house?

Too brave for humans.

Maybe The Giver can help.

Oh, and if everyone worked hard and did their best, the country would have enough resources to let everyone travel first class.

You really don't understand how economics works. At all...

It is mildly worrying to imagine you're a father given the wildly naive arguments you've made in this thread and others.

 

[BHRxRacer]

It is mildly worrying to imagine you're a father given the wildly naive arguments you've made in this thread and others.

Before I answer anything, WHAT? When did I say I'm a father? o.O

edit

it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any.