<u>Proposal</u> <FONT size="1">(similar to the comment Magnus made earlier about economies becoming more like each other)</FONT s>:
Balance in everything. Everyone does
NOT get the exact same thing (pay, house, car, whatever), but everyone gets the minimum pay takes to live, without having to do anything. Beyond that, if you want more, you work for it. Those who do better or work harder, get more. Want more than minimum (but livable) housing given to you by default? Get a job and work hard at it. Want a car or boat? (the public transportation system will get you anywhere, so you don't get a car by default) Same answer. That's the incentive. Wanna slack? Fine, you'll live, but at some point you'll be bored doing nothing and tired of seeing others who have more just by trying a little and you'll get off your a$$. Everyone has something they love to do that can also provide for the community. People slack when they wish they were doing something else. What you don't get is the poor, teh homelessness, the suffering because there are no jobs or any perceived need to steal to order to live.
Also, you get to choose what you LOVE to do, though this may depend some on what's needed any given time. But you don't have people who work and hate their jobs because they HAVE to do it to live. What does that do to customer service and overall happiness? What does that do to domestic violence when people love their jobs and don't feel pressured by life to choose or keep a bad one? What does that do to the well-paid slacking that does on today when one is naturally motivated by something they love? (You don't need managers to police for bad workers when people do what they love.) What does that do to crime when everyone always has enough? These are things we currently pay for INDIRECTLY today but we don't account for it. Perhaps not always in money, but sometimes we pay in risk. Looking at the big picture, contributing more to a system that takes care of everyone may pay off better. And is "paying off better" having more money (a concept we made up), or having everything you want and not needing this extra "stuff" (money) lying around for no reason? We look at high taxation, but do we factor in everything? Would you pay more for an overall safer, better life? I would. I would pay more to take minimum care of my slacking neighbor who would otherwise take a job at the Post Office because he had to and then hate it and eventually gun down all his coworkers and I end up paying for funeral costs, lack of productivity at the Post Office, counselling for the community, a public defender and more in prison costs anyway. Y'know?
Capitalism is a system that is only doing well when it is growing. And is growth unlimited? And, by default, it is bad when things decline (or lately, when they don't grow fast enough). I may be speaking out of turn, but I believe a system that does not depend on constant growth would not succumb to inflation. So necessities in a Communist economy would cost the same consistently over time and never be over-priced. And that's less that "the people" have to contribute to maintain it.
I do agree that human nature negatively (and positively) impacts all systems. But that's doesn't mean we shouldn't try a system where you work/do better if you want, but don't have to if you want to (or can't). Why have a system where people are allowed to accumulate unlimited amounts of limited resources, leaving not enough or nothing left for those who didn't/couldn't/didn't know how to act as quickly or in the "right" way? It's kinda like letting a group of hungry children loose at a buffet table where whoever gets the most on their plates gets to keep it. And those who didn't get any/enough get to starve ... awwww, too bad for them, eh? "Survival of the fittest" instead of "love thy neighbor". I believe the 2nd is more evolved than the 1st. I say, give everyone a plate to start out with and let those who are still hungry visit the buffet for whatever is left again and again if they so choose.
And as for looking at what has worked in the past, I think looking at and depending on the past is overrated. If we only ever look at the past for what can be created, nothing new would ever happen. What if someone had pointed out to the U.S. Founding Fathers that no one in the history of the world had ever successfully self-governed before (which is true, and very much like what many of you have said about forms of Communism) and therefore it would never work? And then what if they believed him and took his word for it (they wouldn't believe a woman in those days) that it wasn't possible and was not worth trying? Then where would America be? I'll tell ya: God Save the Queen.
Communism may be ideal, but so was America. Neither has been fully realized successfully (unless you call our system "successful" despite the high crime and homeless in the street, etc. etc. etc.).
Spiff
