Forums → WEPR → A resource based economy?

23	7910

offline

AnaLoGMunKy

1,573 posts

Blacksmith

Posted July 6, '11 2:54pm UTC

This is from Zeitgeist 2: Addendum Excerpts

It talks about getting rid of money because it is a system that does not benefit humankind anymore.
He also talks a little about god being man made to explain many things i.e. the sun comes up and goes down etc.

Im interested to know if anyone thinks the resource based economy is feasible and if not, why not?

23 Replies

offline

JosephMatthew

2 posts

Nomad

Posted July 12, '11 6:57pm UTC

Hi! Saw this thread and thought to chime in. Seems a lot of you nay-sayers do not really understand how a resource based economy functions, so am adding to the discussion to offset.

I don't say this to be combative, only to point out that most of the issues & conditions you mention are simply not relevant "by design" and thus are not blocking issues. Not to say there will not be challenges, there will be many, but nothing insurmountable or impossible.

re: human nature &

"not even a change in human nature would allow the system to work.

Modern understanding of human behavior suggests we respond to our environment above most else; survival of the fittest meaning adaptive. Therefore it is not human nature that we're violent or selfish, more that our environment encourages it so we adapt. Just the same we would positively adapt to a near scarcity free environment.

Basically, you need an elite few everyone trusts who understands exactly how many resources goes into every single project in the world (or country). It would also require the elite few to understand exactly how to divide the resources between projects according to supply and demand, and needs and wants. "

This controlling elite you speak of is absolutely contrary to what a resource based economy is about. You make the statement such is necessary, without providing any factual evidence to support the idea. Don't be fooled, just because it is what we've had doesn't mean it is what we need.

re: resources
As to resources, resources are measured against what is needed (starting with shared base necessities that we all have, regardless; clean food, air, water, shelter, a relevant education, etc.). Those are quantifiable even with yesterday's technology. Alongside this, we develop systems of monitoring resources in our environment, to understand what the environment can support. We use this data to generate what we need, and in the case of natural scarcity, seek alternatives.

It's not rocket science, and no we don't need "Star trek" computers to do it. It won't be handed to us by some big corporations, so if that's what you're used to & expecting, then you've missed the point entirely.

@michaelxd
How and why? Make your case; use examples.

@1337Player
I don't think you've understood the priority on automation in a resource based economy.

@Everyone
Please do your homework on this topic before making erroneous statements; it just holds back factual, fruitful discussion.

Hi! Saw this thread and thought to chime in. Seems a lot of you nay-sayers do not really understand how a resource based economy functions, so am adding to the discussion to offset.\r\n\r\nI don't say this to be combative, only to point out that most of the issues & conditions you mention are simply not relevant "by design" and thus are not blocking issues. Not to say there will not be challenges, there will be many, but nothing insurmountable or impossible.\r\n\r\n[b]re: human nature & [/b][quote]"not even a change in human nature would allow the system to work.[/quote]\r\nModern understanding of human behavior suggests we respond to our environment above most else; survival of the fittest meaning adaptive. Therefore it is not human nature that we're violent or selfish, more that our environment encourages it so we adapt. Just the same we would positively adapt to a near scarcity free environment. \r\n\r\n[quote]Basically, you need an elite few everyone trusts who understands exactly how many resources goes into every single project in the world (or country). It would also require the elite few to understand exactly how to divide the resources between projects according to supply and demand, and needs and wants. "[/quote]\r\nThis controlling elite you speak of is absolutely contrary to what a resource based economy is about. You make the statement such is necessary, without providing any factual evidence to support the idea. Don't be fooled, just because it is what we've had doesn't mean it is what we need. \r\n\r\n[b]re: resources[/b]\r\nAs to resources, resources are measured against what is needed (starting with shared base necessities that we all have, regardless; clean food, air, water, shelter, a relevant education, etc.). Those are quantifiable even with yesterday's technology. Alongside this, we develop systems of monitoring resources in our environment, to understand what the environment can support. We use this data to generate what we need, and in the case of natural scarcity, seek alternatives. \r\n\r\nIt's not rocket science, and no we don't need "Star trek" computers to do it. It won't be handed to us by some big corporations, so if that's what you're used to & expecting, then you've missed the point entirely.\r\n\r\n@michaelxd\r\nHow and why? Make your case; use examples.\r\n\r\n@1337Player\r\nI don't think you've understood the priority on automation in a resource based economy.\r\n\r\n\r\n@Everyone\r\nPlease do your homework on this topic before making erroneous statements; it just holds back factual, fruitful discussion.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted July 12, '11 7:57pm UTC

my mind about it:
it just sounds very silly.

offline

JosephMatthew

2 posts

Nomad

Posted July 12, '11 9:52pm UTC

@partydevil
Care to elaborate? What part of "effectively eliminate hunger, war, crime, money, poverty for the betterment of our human family" exactly do you find silly?

Or if not that, then what?

Am not being antagonistic, I genuinely want to understand your position.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted July 12, '11 10:14pm UTC

it will not bring the human kind any furter then it is today.
thats why i think it is silly.

if we lose the concept of money then we will not be able to pay for scientific research for example. or pay for medical research.
there will be no big companys anymore that can provide luxery to any1.

people from the city's must leave the city again to be able to create their own resources and trade them for other products.
what if your a farmer whit cows. and you want to eat something like corn. then you must trade your cow for some corn. but corn is not worte the same as a cow. then you get A. a sh!tload of corn for your cow wich you will not be able to all eat befor the end of the season. or B. you have to cut your cow. making the other half of your cow that you keep being worteless.

humans will no longer have electricitie. because the people that own a electricitie company will not get anything back for his electricitie.
a resource based economy sounds to me like: let's get back to the stone-age (read: pre-roman age)
thats why i think it is silly.

(plz. except my bad spelling. it's late, i type this as fast possible, i did not use a spellings check. and i'm at the point of going to bed.)

it will not bring the human kind any furter then it is today.\r\nthats why i think it is silly.\r\n\r\nif we lose the concept of money then we will not be able to pay for scientific research for example. or pay for medical research.\r\nthere will be no big companys anymore that can provide luxery to any1. \r\n\r\npeople from the city's must leave the city again to be able to create their own resources and trade them for other products. \r\nwhat if your a farmer whit cows. and you want to eat something like corn. then you must trade your cow for some corn. but corn is not worte the same as a cow. then you get A. a sh!tload of corn for your cow wich you will not be able to all eat befor the end of the season. or B. you have to cut your cow. making the other half of your cow that you keep being worteless.\r\n\r\nhumans will no longer have electricitie. because the people that own a electricitie company will not get anything back for his electricitie.\r\na resource based economy sounds to me like: let's get back to the stone-age (read: pre-roman age)\r\nthats why i think it is silly.\r\n\r\n(plz. except my bad spelling. it's late, i type this as fast possible, i did not use a spellings check. and i'm at the point of going to bed.)

offline

TheMarxistSmurf

8 posts

Nomad

Posted July 13, '11 7:14pm UTC

We come into a society because a society offers us more security and the freedom to do other things than does living outside of society, where the only liberty one has is the liberty to constantly struggle to stay alive based on one's individual capabilities. Since the latter is where humans first came from; an environment where you had to compete with other humans, where you absolutely needed to use every resource available to you in order to compete against other people trying just as hard as you to stay alive, it makes sense that people acquired traits which would be defined as greedy and therefore developed first into societies based on self-interest and exploitation. The weak and unfortunate are naturally rounded up and administered by the strong, most of the time in ways and systems which necessarily exploit them.

In all societies, the ruling classes have been held up on the backs of the majority of the population. The lowest functioning class in a society usually is the one that provides all material resources for the other classes in society. For instance, let's look a slave society. The slave produces food for not only himself and the other slaves, but also for the man who whips him daily, and for the man who owns the slave plantation, or the Pharaoh who ordered the construction of a pyramid which will house his one day decaying body. The man who whips the slaves doesn't actually provide any food for himself, and neither does any man above the who which does the whipping, the slaves do. And the classes above slave status owe their opportunity to command the slaves or have more wealth and free-time to the absence of that opportunity to most of the slaves. Thus, it is the slaves who end up doing the most amount of work for the least amount of rewards. They necessarily are exploited for this system to function. Capitalism is very similar. The actual labor power and value of a commodity produced by a laborer in a factory is not sufficiently rewarded to the worker, it is given to the owner of that factory. The worker receives only the amount of money which is necessary to sustain his existence and keep working. For the majority of the population, even if factory labor largely does not exist in a nation like the United States, that exploitation merely is shipped to other nations where labor can be sold at farlower prices for the production owners. And now, we owe our comfort and freedom to the absence of comfort and freedom experienced by millions of people somewhere else. And we're generally not bothered by this, because we cannot immediately observe the exploitation which continues to take place in its present form in 1rst world, liberal democracies, and because the superstructure mostly justifies the existance of this kind of system using cultural ideas and media (I.e, cultural ideas which tend to say: "your position may suck now, but it because you have not worked hard enough. You must blame yourself, not the ruling classes, for your position in society. If you work hard, you might obtain wealth and happiness.&quot

Societies based on the constant accumulation of capital and commodities via competition always result in this general way; they result in the exploitation of the many by the few. They result in culture, government and ideas existing in a way which justifies the existence and position of the ruling classes. The Divine Right of Kings, which used religion to justify the existence of Kings, is one historical example of this.

These happenings are natural. We cannot necessarily control the laws of necessity which cause them to happen, but we can manipulate them with our understanding of them for the benefit of everyone, just as understanding science gives us power over nature, although we cannot change the laws of nature. An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable. But you cannot expect the people living in the context of our present society being able to function in some communist or socialist utopia, much less a resource economy. What you'd need is a population that is generally intelligent and have intellectually, and voluntarily, accepted the idea that if resources were used for the good of the community in which they live in, that if the ruling classes no longer had power over their lives, then their individual self interests will be satisfied and they will therefore be happier and better individuals, not to mention more free individuals. This type of a mentality in a population can only be done through slow evolution from the one in which we have established now.

How exactly we'll reach those conditions in which we evolve to such an ideal society, or at least aspire to one, cannot be determined, not atleast by stupid ol' me. Revolution may be necessary if the ruling classes resist such change because it does not benefit their addiction of wealth and power, which is gained at the expense of all other members of society. Poltical evolution to this society is possible, but it is far slower and will be hindered many times since it attempts to work with a society whose goals remain individualist satisfaction at the expense of other people in society. Also, the culture supporting the exploiting society will make it difficult for people to want to accept other ideas, on a majority level. Distractions and apathy, which are widespread in our society, also hinder mankind's ability to work towards a resource or communist society from the one in which they live now. Socialism, communism, a resource-based economy, are all impossible without proper social evolution (being done voluntarily by the masses) and certain level of common sense, empathy, and intelligence among the majority of the population. This type of a society may not be seen within our lifetime, but it is conceivable and structurally possible.

We come into a society because a society offers us more security and the freedom to do other things than does living outside of society, where the only liberty one has is the liberty to constantly struggle to stay alive based on one's individual capabilities. Since the latter is where humans first came from; an environment where you had to compete with other humans, where you absolutely needed to use every resource available to you in order to compete against other people trying just as hard as you to stay alive, it makes sense that people acquired traits which would be defined as greedy and therefore developed first into societies based on self-interest and exploitation. The weak and unfortunate are naturally rounded up and administered by the strong, most of the time in ways and systems which necessarily exploit them. \r\n\r\n\r\nIn all societies, the ruling classes have been held up on the backs of the majority of the population. The lowest functioning class in a society usually is the one that provides all material resources for the other classes in society. For instance, let's look a slave society. The slave produces food for not only himself and the other slaves, but also for the man who whips him daily, and for the man who owns the slave plantation, or the Pharaoh who ordered the construction of a pyramid which will house his one day decaying body. The man who whips the slaves doesn't actually provide any food for himself, and neither does any man above the who which does the whipping, the slaves do. And the classes above slave status owe their opportunity to command the slaves or have more wealth and free-time to the absence of that opportunity to most of the slaves. Thus, it is the slaves who end up doing the most amount of work for the least amount of rewards. They necessarily are exploited for this system to function. Capitalism is very similar. The actual labor power and value of a commodity produced by a laborer in a factory is not sufficiently rewarded to the worker, it is given to the owner of that factory. The worker receives only the amount of money which is necessary to sustain his existence and keep working. For the majority of the population, even if factory labor largely does not exist in a nation like the United States, that exploitation merely is shipped to other nations where labor can be sold at farlower prices for the production owners. And now, we owe our comfort and freedom to the absence of comfort and freedom experienced by millions of people somewhere else. And we're generally not bothered by this, because we cannot immediately observe the exploitation which continues to take place in its present form in 1rst world, liberal democracies, and because the superstructure mostly justifies the existance of this kind of system using cultural ideas and media (I.e, cultural ideas which tend to say: "your position may suck now, but it because you have not worked hard enough. You must blame yourself, not the ruling classes, for your position in society. If you work hard, you might obtain wealth and happiness.")\r\n\r\nSocieties based on the constant accumulation of capital and commodities via competition always result in this general way; they result in the exploitation of the many by the few. They result in culture, government and ideas existing in a way which justifies the existence and position of the ruling classes. The Divine Right of Kings, which used religion to justify the existence of Kings, is one historical example of this. \r\n\r\n\r\nThese happenings are natural. We cannot necessarily control the laws of necessity which cause them to happen, but we can manipulate them with our understanding of them for the benefit of everyone, just as understanding science gives us power over nature, although we cannot change the laws of nature. An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable. But you cannot expect the people living in the context of our present society being able to function in some communist or socialist utopia, much less a resource economy. What you'd need is a population that is generally intelligent and have intellectually, and voluntarily, accepted the idea that if resources were used for the good of the community in which they live in, that if the ruling classes no longer had power over their lives, then their individual self interests will be satisfied and they will therefore be happier and better individuals, not to mention more free individuals. This type of a mentality in a population can only be done through slow evolution from the one in which we have established now.\r\n\r\nHow exactly we'll reach those conditions in which we evolve to such an ideal society, or at least aspire to one, cannot be determined, not atleast by stupid ol' me. Revolution may be necessary if the ruling classes resist such change because it does not benefit their addiction of wealth and power, which is gained at the expense of all other members of society. Poltical evolution to this society is possible, but it is far slower and will be hindered many times since it attempts to work with a society whose goals remain individualist satisfaction at the expense of other people in society. Also, the culture supporting the exploiting society will make it difficult for people to want to accept other ideas, on a majority level. Distractions and apathy, which are widespread in our society, also hinder mankind's ability to work towards a resource or communist society from the one in which they live now. Socialism, communism, a resource-based economy, are all impossible without proper social evolution (being done voluntarily by the masses) and certain level of common sense, empathy, and intelligence among the majority of the population. This type of a society may not be seen within our lifetime, but it is conceivable and structurally possible.

offline

AnaLoGMunKy

1,573 posts

Blacksmith

Posted July 19, '11 10:59am UTC

Socialism, communism, a resource-based economy, are all impossible without proper social evolution (being done voluntarily by the masses) and certain level of common sense, empathy, and intelligence among the majority of the population

Very true, basically we are still an infant race who runs to his room, slams the door, pumps up the music and feed ourselves crisps and fizzy poop and has serious communication problems.

A resource based economy is not about trading resources, its about sensible resource distribution.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted July 19, '11 11:39am UTC

A resource based economy is not about trading resources, its about sensible resource distribution.

The problem with distributing resources is that we don't know to distribute them in the most efficient manner.

We may THINK we know how to best distribute resources, but we can only see what is happening. We often can't see events that faulty distribution causes.

Let's say that we did live in a resource based economy. We must determine which resources should be given to whom. For example, we may notice that there are two people competing for limited resources. One of them has introduced public transportation that is very eco-friendly, the other is the CEO of a business that made cars. There's really know way to know who should gain the resources for the following reasons:

1. We are assuming the eco-friendly public transportation is the best way to save the Earth and for people to travel. Because the CEO of a car manufacturing business never had a chance to obtain many resources, we will never know how he would have used them. Who knows, maybe he would have used the resources to create an even more eco-friendly car that would benefit society more than the public transportation. Maybe he would have wasted it. However, by giving our resources to the "sure thing", we will only advance if the people receiving resources chooses to do so. They may not advance their technology or they may be slow due to the fact they could obtain a monopoly over certain resources.

Until we obtain a "What If" machine, there's no way to know who will advance society and who will hold society back.

2. We determine the value of resources by looking at the price. More valuable resources often cost more money. It's the price of products that forces businesses to consider carefully which resources best suit the product they are willing to sell. When you run a business, your resources are limited by the amount of money that you have. Because of this, you must make sure you ration your limited resources carefully.

Without a price mechanism, there would be no risk for people who want to use rare and valuable resources for products that either don't need to be made from said resources, or for products hardly anyone wants.

[quote]A resource based economy is not about trading resources, its about sensible resource distribution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe problem with distributing resources is that we don't know to distribute them in the most efficient manner.\r\n\r\nWe may THINK we know how to best distribute resources, but we can only see what is happening. We often can't see events that faulty distribution causes.\r\n\r\nLet's say that we did live in a resource based economy. We must determine which resources should be given to whom. For example, we may notice that there are two people competing for limited resources. One of them has introduced public transportation that is very eco-friendly, the other is the CEO of a business that made cars. There's really know way to know who should gain the resources for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n1. We are assuming the eco-friendly public transportation is the best way to save the Earth and for people to travel. Because the CEO of a car manufacturing business never had a chance to obtain many resources, we will never know how he would have used them. Who knows, maybe he would have used the resources to create an even more eco-friendly car that would benefit society more than the public transportation. Maybe he would have wasted it. However, by giving our resources to the "sure thing", we will only advance if the people receiving resources chooses to do so. They may not advance their technology or they may be slow due to the fact they could obtain a monopoly over certain resources.\r\n\r\nUntil we obtain a "What If" machine, there's no way to know who will advance society and who will hold society back.\r\n\r\n2. We determine the value of resources by looking at the price. More valuable resources often cost more money. It's the price of products that forces businesses to consider carefully which resources best suit the product they are willing to sell. When you run a business, your resources are limited by the amount of money that you have. Because of this, you must make sure you ration your limited resources carefully.\r\n\r\nWithout a price mechanism, there would be no risk for people who want to use rare and valuable resources for products that either don't need to be made from said resources, or for products hardly anyone wants.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted July 19, '11 12:19pm UTC

Societies based on the constant accumulation of capital and commodities via competition always result in this general way; they result in the exploitation of the many by the few.

Watch this.

These happenings are natural. We cannot necessarily control the laws of necessity which cause them to happen, but we can manipulate them with our understanding of them for the benefit of everyone, just as understanding science gives us power over nature, although we cannot change the laws of nature.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in an all knowing entity.

The government is not, and never will be, an all knowing entity.

Scientists are not gods themselves either. Scientists can come to a number of conclusions, but economics is more than science, it is also philosophy. Unless we can predict every single flood, drought, hurricane, and other disasters both man made and natural, scientists will never have enough foresight to create an economy solely based off of science.

I'm not saying science isn't important when it comes to economics, quite the opposite, but science alone can not control an economy.

An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable. But you cannot expect the people living in the context of our present society being able to function in some communist or socialist utopia, much less a resource economy. What you'd need is a population that is generally intelligent and have intellectually, and voluntarily, accepted the idea that if resources were used for the good of the community in which they live in, that if the ruling classes no longer had power over their lives, then their individual self interests will be satisfied and they will therefore be happier and better individuals, not to mention more free individuals. This type of a mentality in a population can only be done through slow evolution from the one in which we have established now.

The problem is that we keep assuming there's a good and evil, someone who wants to give and someone who wants to take. This is not always the situation. More often than not, when two people don't get along, it's not because one is greedy and the other isn't. No, they both believe they know what is best for themselves and/or others. "Doing what's best for society" isn't necessarily clear. Some of us believe the answer to best serving humanity is to live in a state where we all are forced to get along through government coercion, while others believe we must break free from government and live in a world of anarchy, where we all choose who we wish to watch out for and who we do not wish to watch out for.

An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable.

For people to control the means of gathering and distribution, you must allow them to act out as individuals (in a free market). By having a government that creates rules and guidelines as to what can and can not be traded, what is legal tender, what prices should be, and what deals may be made between two human beings, then the economy is anything but controlled by the people.

A free market, a TRULY free market, is the only way a person can have full control over their own resources. We live in a corporatist society where the government is big enough to get involved with the market, which allows them to cater to big businesses by creating laws that seem like they will benefit society, when all they really do is wipe out the competition for the big pigs.

individualist satisfaction at the expense of other people in society.

I'm a very giving person. I have learned the hard way that you can't give too much or you become drained and miserable. Not only that, but everyone is different when it comes to giving. Some people feel good when they give a lot, while others feel used. This is why I believe in individualism, because we choose who we help, how much we help, and when we want to help. By forcing everyone to "give", we limit the amount of happiness people may achieve. Not all of us are comfortable helping the people that the government helps, or are happy with the amount we are forced to give, or when we are forced to give.

Individualism allows people to socialize with whomever they want, when they want, and to make whatever deals they want. People may be as greedy or selfless as they want. Some people may give to their society, some people may not. There are people of many different colors who will mix and match in many different ways.

Collectivism forces everyone to "help" each other by means of coercion. If you aren't happy "helping" someone else by giving up your hard earned pay, you are punished. By the end of the day, you have less money to support yourself and/or the ones you love. No matter what color a person is, they must act as one. Everyone must be the same without the option to try something different.

[quote]Societies based on the constant accumulation of capital and commodities via competition always result in this general way; they result in the exploitation of the many by the few.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTgJNWs-gWA&feature=channel_video_title]Watch this.[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]These happenings are natural. We cannot necessarily control the laws of necessity which cause them to happen, but we can manipulate them with our understanding of them for the benefit of everyone, just as understanding science gives us power over nature, although we cannot change the laws of nature.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI am an atheist. I do not believe in an all knowing entity.\r\n\r\nThe government is not, and never will be, an all knowing entity.\r\n\r\nScientists are not gods themselves either. Scientists can come to a number of conclusions, but economics is more than science, it is also philosophy. Unless we can predict every single flood, drought, hurricane, and other disasters both man made and natural, scientists will never have enough foresight to create an economy solely based off of science. \r\n\r\nI'm not saying science isn't important when it comes to economics, quite the opposite, but science alone can not control an economy.\r\n\r\n[quote]An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable. But you cannot expect the people living in the context of our present society being able to function in some communist or socialist utopia, much less a resource economy. What you'd need is a population that is generally intelligent and have intellectually, and voluntarily, accepted the idea that if resources were used for the good of the community in which they live in, that if the ruling classes no longer had power over their lives, then their individual self interests will be satisfied and they will therefore be happier and better individuals, not to mention more free individuals. This type of a mentality in a population can only be done through slow evolution from the one in which we have established now.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe problem is that we keep assuming there's a good and evil, someone who wants to give and someone who wants to take. This is not always the situation. More often than not, when two people don't get along, it's not because one is greedy and the other isn't. No, they both believe they know what is best for themselves and/or others. "Doing what's best for society" isn't necessarily clear. Some of us believe the answer to best serving humanity is to live in a state where we all are forced to get along through government coercion, while others believe we must break free from government and live in a world of anarchy, where we all choose who we wish to watch out for and who we do not wish to watch out for.\r\n\r\n[quote]An economy where people control the means of gathering and distributing resources in the name of mankind is conceivable.[/quote]\r\n\r\nFor people to control the means of gathering and distribution, you must allow them to act out as individuals (in a free market). By having a government that creates rules and guidelines as to what can and can not be traded, what is legal tender, what prices should be, and what deals may be made between two human beings, then the economy is anything but controlled by the people.\r\n\r\nA free market, a TRULY free market, is the only way a person can have full control over their own resources. We live in a corporatist society where the government is big enough to get involved with the market, which allows them to cater to big businesses by creating laws that seem like they will benefit society, when all they really do is wipe out the competition for the big pigs.\r\n\r\n[quote]individualist satisfaction at the expense of other people in society.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm a very giving person. I have learned the hard way that you can't give too much or you become drained and miserable. Not only that, but everyone is different when it comes to giving. Some people feel good when they give a lot, while others feel used. This is why I believe in individualism, because we choose who we help, how much we help, and when we want to help. By forcing everyone to "give", we limit the amount of happiness people may achieve. Not all of us are comfortable helping the people that the government helps, or are happy with the amount we are forced to give, or when we are forced to give.\r\n\r\nIndividualism allows people to socialize with whomever they want, when they want, and to make whatever deals they want. People may be as greedy or selfless as they want. Some people may give to their society, some people may not. There are people of many different colors who will mix and match in many different ways. \r\n\r\nCollectivism forces everyone to "help" each other by means of coercion. If you aren't happy "helping" someone else by giving up your hard earned pay, you are punished. By the end of the day, you have less money to support yourself and/or the ones you love. No matter what color a person is, they must act as one. Everyone must be the same without the option to try something different.

Showing 16-23 of 23

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → A resource based economy?