greenpeace
Peacelord
It took me so long to respond so this might be old, but oh well:
. Practically everyone has a reason(s) to live (or else they wouldnt be living), and this reason is commonly known as a "goal." By pursuing a goal you are naturally benefitted (not via material gain, but by natural happiness) and society must allow this with only the following restriction. Pursuing a goal will benefit a society except in cases in which your intention is to actively cause net harm to others. Although the community should try to improve peoples lives enough that they dont harm others, in this case society may use force to prevent you from harming someone (that isn't the case of your point, but societys right to use force against a person like a murder is an important point to make that will lead to the answer). Of course, you may make the argument, "sure it would be nice if we could all pursue the goals we want to, but if Jimmy is a painter, Bob is a sculptor, Rose is an actress and nobody is a farmer/sanitation worker/ etc. then society will fall apart." However, in order to pursue goals you need food, a livable place, and so on. So people would naturally "donate" extra time to do things that aren't "directly" aiding their goal. So in effect, people will spend enough time (the amount of on an individual level depends on how much they are unwilling to indirectly pursue goals) not doing what directly benefits their goal society so that the society doesn't fall apart. Its similar to Capitalism's system of prices that insure for example, that if yogurt goes out of style it will be produced less (only in this case its if people are hungry than people will be more likely to farm and therefore people will have enough food).
The main difference is that Capitalism's basis is the desire for capital (wealth), whereas this system is based on human desire (and restraining those that do direct damage to people and being neutral or positive to the rest). This is much more humane because it is clearly possible in many cases that people simply have no desire for wealth beyond the basics. In the case of Capitalism, those that have no desire for wealth but do have other desires that are completely good intentioned may easily not be able to attain or even pursue their goals as much as a person whose goals revolve around gaining wealth. Also, one may be willing to work very diligently for a good cause, but simply not be able to amass a fortune for the cause. You often cite cases where people start off poor and become rich. Sure, I will agree that people can become rich if they desire wealth and know how, but not everyone with good intention can become rich because then being "rich" would be relatively meaningless. And because your system simply rewards those who gain capital, it happens quite often that good intentions may be punished with lack of capital and therefore basics, whereas negative intentions will be punished. For example, a mafia leader who sells drugs may gain much more capital than a nun who gives aids the poor. In the society [oops I digressed a lot at this point- here it is in spoilers]:
... [in the alternative society] everyone is able to equally pursue positive goals (I define "negative" goals as those that cause direct intentional net harm to others and "positive" as those that don't). However, when I say "equally" that is not quite true. Those intentions that benefit society more will be more likely "helped" (through voluntary labor) by citizens than those who do not benefit society as much, and so the more good you do society the more likely you will be supported.
Now, one may make a good point that "If society is on the average "positively intentioned" (basically if half the people aren't murders), then on the whole, those who want capital will gain more money by working to help those with positive intentions, and so Capitalism benefits those with positive intentions. However, this is not necessarily true because those with negative intentions may easily have just as much buying power as those with positive intentions and therefore one may gain just as much by aiding those who have negative intentions.
One other interesting counter point (and this one finally leads to the direct answer to your questions) is the question, If all actions taken by people are allowed (except directly harmful actions), what stops people from not sharing the resources they collect or the labor they spend The answer to this question is very similar to why people work in the first place. Since nobody should, or wants to, be expected to live completely separated on their own, people will share in order to encourage others to share. The net result is that the culture will make a natural system where people input their work to the community. If nobody shares than everybody looses and so it is in everyones best interest to not horde their produce. However, what if some doesnt share, or simply does not produce at all despite being capable of doing so (as in your case)?
Unlike in Capitalism, where the individual would just starve until (s)he died, this society would most likely realize that it very directly benefits from the individuals pursuit of positive goals. And so, the society would most likely end up helping the individual achieve or be inspired to at least attempt to find a positive goal (s)he has. If (s)he absolutely completely refuses to do anything other than stare at wall than the individual would probably be kept alive in the hopes that they would one day contribute to society. However, that vast majority would not completely slack off, and if they did they would naturally be punished with hunger and a degrading society.
I guess I answered your question already (took me long enough ), but I just want to clarify. In this society, your rights are that you may do anything except intentionally do net harm to other people. You also have the right to call a counsel of your local community if you feel you are being done harm, in which case the community (of which anyone can be apart of) will attempt to resolve the conflict and use force, if absolutely necessary, to prevent net harm being done (remember though, nobody has the right to do net harm so punishment- which really has no reason other than revenge- would most certainly not be used unless you consider forced restraint punishment). [I digressed: but here is why a communal counsel if better than other forms of justice]
I think youre misinterpreting him (or I am; either way here's what I think
. Practically everyone has a reason(s) to live (or else they wouldnt be living), and this reason is commonly known as a "goal." By pursuing a goal you are naturally benefitted (not via material gain, but by natural happiness) and society must allow this with only the following restriction. Pursuing a goal will benefit a society except in cases in which your intention is to actively cause net harm to others. Although the community should try to improve peoples lives enough that they dont harm others, in this case society may use force to prevent you from harming someone (that isn't the case of your point, but societys right to use force against a person like a murder is an important point to make that will lead to the answer). Of course, you may make the argument, "sure it would be nice if we could all pursue the goals we want to, but if Jimmy is a painter, Bob is a sculptor, Rose is an actress and nobody is a farmer/sanitation worker/ etc. then society will fall apart." However, in order to pursue goals you need food, a livable place, and so on. So people would naturally "donate" extra time to do things that aren't "directly" aiding their goal. So in effect, people will spend enough time (the amount of on an individual level depends on how much they are unwilling to indirectly pursue goals) not doing what directly benefits their goal society so that the society doesn't fall apart. Its similar to Capitalism's system of prices that insure for example, that if yogurt goes out of style it will be produced less (only in this case its if people are hungry than people will be more likely to farm and therefore people will have enough food).The main difference is that Capitalism's basis is the desire for capital (wealth), whereas this system is based on human desire (and restraining those that do direct damage to people and being neutral or positive to the rest). This is much more humane because it is clearly possible in many cases that people simply have no desire for wealth beyond the basics. In the case of Capitalism, those that have no desire for wealth but do have other desires that are completely good intentioned may easily not be able to attain or even pursue their goals as much as a person whose goals revolve around gaining wealth. Also, one may be willing to work very diligently for a good cause, but simply not be able to amass a fortune for the cause. You often cite cases where people start off poor and become rich. Sure, I will agree that people can become rich if they desire wealth and know how, but not everyone with good intention can become rich because then being "rich" would be relatively meaningless. And because your system simply rewards those who gain capital, it happens quite often that good intentions may be punished with lack of capital and therefore basics, whereas negative intentions will be punished. For example, a mafia leader who sells drugs may gain much more capital than a nun who gives aids the poor. In the society [oops I digressed a lot at this point- here it is in spoilers]:
Spoiler :
Now, one may make a good point that "If society is on the average "positively intentioned" (basically if half the people aren't murders), then on the whole, those who want capital will gain more money by working to help those with positive intentions, and so Capitalism benefits those with positive intentions. However, this is not necessarily true because those with negative intentions may easily have just as much buying power as those with positive intentions and therefore one may gain just as much by aiding those who have negative intentions.
One other interesting counter point (and this one finally leads to the direct answer to your questions) is the question, If all actions taken by people are allowed (except directly harmful actions), what stops people from not sharing the resources they collect or the labor they spend The answer to this question is very similar to why people work in the first place. Since nobody should, or wants to, be expected to live completely separated on their own, people will share in order to encourage others to share. The net result is that the culture will make a natural system where people input their work to the community. If nobody shares than everybody looses and so it is in everyones best interest to not horde their produce. However, what if some doesnt share, or simply does not produce at all despite being capable of doing so (as in your case)?
Unlike in Capitalism, where the individual would just starve until (s)he died, this society would most likely realize that it very directly benefits from the individuals pursuit of positive goals. And so, the society would most likely end up helping the individual achieve or be inspired to at least attempt to find a positive goal (s)he has. If (s)he absolutely completely refuses to do anything other than stare at wall than the individual would probably be kept alive in the hopes that they would one day contribute to society. However, that vast majority would not completely slack off, and if they did they would naturally be punished with hunger and a degrading society.
I guess I answered your question already (took me long enough
), but I just want to clarify. In this society, your rights are that you may do anything except intentionally do net harm to other people. You also have the right to call a counsel of your local community if you feel you are being done harm, in which case the community (of which anyone can be apart of) will attempt to resolve the conflict and use force, if absolutely necessary, to prevent net harm being done (remember though, nobody has the right to do net harm so punishment- which really has no reason other than revenge- would most certainly not be used unless you consider forced restraint punishment). [I digressed: but here is why a communal counsel if better than other forms of justice] Spoiler :
.
) Anyway: you're not a CEO because you don't know how to be one. It ain't easy. It takes years of education which most of us are not willing to endure. Those who do the work and get the education are rightfully entitled to more.
".
