A Radical Social Idea

1. 72

   jacharlessposted 12 years ago

   For years, even centuries, the concepts of society have varied, yes? Each society claims to be the "correct one" and, at any cost, do what it takes to preserve that ideology, especially the States, who appear to be the self-appointed guardians of the world. Being such guardians, comes with a great responsibility to lead the world into the next millennium.
   
   So, for the sake of being radical, what if...
   The States adopted the following policies:
   
   All persons shall receive, without charge, those things required for essential existence, either by self-development or federally mandated provision: Food, Water, Shelter. These three items shall be produced/maintained to the utmost health and standards of living available, apart from free market conditions/economics, whereby relieving the pressure of simple living and promoting a more equally peaceful and prosperous society.
   
   All items above this are deemed luxuries and shall be marketable at a fair price to both domestic and foreign persons, taxed accordingly, to maintain that market, and protect of the mandates within the Constitution.
   
   
   James.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's a form of socialism, socialists usually hold that education and healthcare are rights too but yeah.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You don't have to be socialist to believe everyone should have basic education and life-saving healthcare.  It is part of other philosophies and religions as part of basic humane conduct.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            My question would be: Were our founders stupid or wise they did not established this socialistic nonsense?  I came from communism (socialism) and you do not have an idea what are you talking about until you live in it.
            Shortage and all excessive expenses came from materialistic greed. When I arrived (40 years ago) I did not find one person complaining of problem with education, healthcare or  high cost. New car 4 doors Chevy was $2600, gas was 50c/Gal, stamps 4-6 c. I work for $1.30/hr and when I was married I paid by myself trip for 10 days on honeymoon to Hawaii.
            How do you like them apples? Ha.
            Going further from God worse is going to be.  The nation cannot survive without moral principles.
            Everyone will be equally poor and controllable.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Were our founders stupid or wise? Wise. Does that make them an ultimate moral authority? No, Abraham Lincoln wrote several letters saying it was obvious that blacks were inferior to whites, does that make him a bad person? No it just means times have changed. I have lived in three socialist countries (no communist ones, you should really know the difference)

               replyreport
2. 55

   Dame Scribeposted 12 years ago

   Compensation for the labor involved in providing food, water and shelter would become a issue to those delivering these services/products. how would this be resolved?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Food: self-growth; micro farms {where possible}.
      Shelter: Community-development {like fire fighters do}.
      Water: that is one quandary I haven't quite figured out, because it includes indoor plumbing {general sanitation}. But, by applying micro-framing, would reduce plastic, paper, glass and light metal {aluminum, tin} usage considerably.
      
      Distribution provided via the tax revenue allotment from luxury sales, perhaps.
      Again, just radical ideas.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting point Madam Dame.
      I seen in my old country that welfare corrupted (the same as money can do).
      I just received info. We had and have minorities, Romos. Former name is Gypsies. They have many kids to receive support from state. Then they are marrying very old dying man to receive their pension. My friends are working with them. They minister gospel and many changed very much. There is hope. But it confirms my former statements. (Well many gypsies and Amish were my former customers). We had to deal with many issues.
      When socialism crashed some Japanese's firms came to my old country, to help start business, people did not have an idea how to run. The first question was are you on strike? No, why? People do not work reading last page sport of newspapers.  People had a job but did not work. There was no work. This is why they crashed.  Sorry for my English.

      replyreport
3. 66

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Far from being radical--is this not what the benefits system provides?  Albeit it in the form of subsistence wage rather than goods?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am vaguely familiar with the US Federal Assistance program, but I gather it is supported via tax withholding from the general labor force -is substandard at best- and somehow tied to the FEM Act. Unless I am misinformed.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well it is pretty much going to have to be supported by tax unless Santa is feeling very generous--and sure it could be better.  But the existing system is still just what you said--to make the absolute necessities for life free to those unable to pay.

         replyreport
4. 55

   Dame Scribeposted 12 years ago

   Solving common society issues would be a achievement. I think looking back through history may provide what worked vs failures. (Mayan culture, scientists were surprised that everybody was well fed.) Also have to keep in mind, gov't officials may be educated but have zero experience, understanding, or ability to relate to the poor, without walking or living in those situations. Allotting farmlands to people for self reliance? well ... it may work but then envy from those failing arises and attempts to 'take over' (wars) may occur.

   replyreport
5. 55

   Dame Scribeposted 12 years ago

   Well, if we look to the Amish or other similar groups, we may get a idea of potential idea's to change. They have succeeded, somewhat, but with strict self-discipline. It would/could grow, independence of a different nature.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting mention of the Amish, used to live near them for a few years.
      But, apart from their rigid religious mode, they do exceptionally well next to their "English" countrymen. Other cultures looked at, throughout history, have been very successful this way too. Seems to be a consensus that if food, water, shelter are provided, societies tend to spend more time developing and less time fighting over leftovers. And yes, the issue of greed does factor in, at least on the luxury level.
      
      Right it is a form of socialism, in that society is collectively working together to insure provision and more socio-capitalism on the luxuries level, by competing in the free market for said luxuries/wares.
      
      On a personal level, these 3 things that are necessary for humans to exist, seem to be those things denied them: excellent food and clean water/sanitation and modern housing. These three things are said to be responsible for most stress/unrest among people. Food grows freely and water flows freely, in most places. After 25 years in the food industry, I often wondered why people have to pay for food -meaning the staples & water. Luxury food, like you would get at a restaurant is different, because you are paying for creativity and something exotic...

      replyreport
   2. 59

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The difference being that the Amish produce for themselves whereas looking at the opening statement her suggests whether or not you work to produce it you will be provided it.
      I am sorry but there is such a strong sense of entitlement already in this country that what you will produce here are people that will expect everything and produce nothing. There is already a subset of our nation in this state and this "solution" would only further exacerbate this.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is like everyone else I deal ith who says you must be open to "new ideas". After patiently listening you will discover there are no new ideas. Just old ones repackaged.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            True

            replyreport
      2. 72

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Mr Chams,
         The idea behind my thinking is: Are humans entitled to exist? Are they entitled to the fundamental necessities to exist: food, water, shelter? I believe yes. These are not only necessities to exist/live but are non-economic elements, meaning food/water/wood grow naturally on the planet, making them free of charge to begin with. The imposition of economics placed on those items, by those who control land use, aqueducts/reservoirs, deny the basic human necessities to merely exist. Nearly half of the global population does not have these three items -on a modern and healthy scale. More troubling is these figures are higher in urban/industrialized areas.
         
         One could argue this idea applies to everything man~made, since all of it comes from nature. However, after these three items are in provision, there is certainly plenty of room for creativity and economics, which would be the form of luxury.
         
         I think the Amish, Eskimos, Hunzakuts {Burusho} and more show this is quite possible -even if we continue present industrial systems.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, we do not deserve anything. Last judgment will come all guilty will be found except those who were bailed out.
            How do you have gut to say somebody else has to work for you and pay for you and you will do nothing just use the dopes and watch TV?

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               This is a very broad statement. So next time you think you deserve respect? Think twice about it.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No he obviously has English as a second language and I understand him.
                  
                  No-----you are not entitled to anything. I can only assume the entitlement to life means the author is therefore pro-life.
                  
                  Also as Vladimir said it will require people to work for them while they receive their entitlements which is an extension of what i just said.
                  
                  Also his opening statement made it clear that ownership was to be by permission of the state so everyone can look forward to having their belongings inventoried by the nice people with the sidearms.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I understood him too.
                     And, YOU are who exactly to tell me what I am entitled to?
                     You could assume anything you like. No one is going to stop you.
                     Interesting, really? Is that how it would work? If you think that's the case, then truly you lack vision. Thus, closed minded and/or narrow minded. Maybe, it's just a lack of knowledge.
                     I don't care what HIS opening statement to the forums was. I was addressing the statement I addressed. If you haven't figured that out, then I suggest you open your eyes, because I didn't say anything at all on this topic, until I replied to his statement.
                     
                     You running to someone's defense because you didn't like what was said, is your ego on steroids. His statement was stupid and ridiculous, and showed why in my statement to HIM.
                     
                     I don't give a damn what you think. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        NO...I am not mistaking an attempt to convince people we need to be Socialist. I'm not missing that at all.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           An attempt to convince people we need to be Socialist? WOW! Not only did you misunderstand, you claim to not be missing that at all, is absurd.
                           
                           America is already partially Socialist, if it wasn't, then it would not spend $2 TRILLION on aiding people.
                           
                           Take your head out of the sand.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I am aware of that. That is EXACTLY what I fight here but I have to sit and listen to you try and impose a set of rules on my debate with people. You have your style and I have mine. Get over it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 The only rule I set is rationality.
                                 
                                 You're fighting against the socialistic programs that have been in place for decades, because you don't think anyone deserves anything at all.
                                 
                                 That speaks so loudly about the level of compassion you have for others. Good show.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Listen closely...
                                    Firstly you find and post here for me where I said no one deserves it.
                                    Secondly we have decimated millions of lives by handing them an entitlement society in which they are not required to take part,...just consume.
                                    We on track so far?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 69

                                       Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Listen closely? Interesting statement.
                                       It's in your posts in this thread.
                                       We? Who is we? Or are you talking about America? I can only assume you're talking about America as a Nation.
                                       
                                       And what do you expect when government is bent on dumbing down society as a whole with it's distortion and misinformation political correctness tactics.
                                       
                                       People seriously believe that political correct speech is an okay thing to do and it's not. That's part and parcel of the stupidity and willful ignorance citizens are part of.
                                       This nation is on track okay, track for destruction and huge devastating effects on every person living in America.

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Look we are on the same road obviously we just have different ways of dealing with it. Now, let's agree to disagree on how we will go about it individually.
                                          Stop trying to correct people who are actually your allies. We don't need it.

                                          report
                                       2. 59

                                          JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          I know full well you haven't seen ME involved in political correctness.

                                          report
                                          1. 69

                                             Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             I didn't say you did. I said government. And the fact that people believe it's okay.

                                             report
                     2. 59

                        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If you don't give a damn what I think ignore my comments. We will both be better off.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Not happening. As I told you before, irrationality must be addressed. I don't have to care about your statement with regards to myself. I do care how they are of limited vision and can be damaging because you don't know the difference between what you think is right vs what is right for the sake of it being right.
                           
                           Like I said, you're part of the problem, yet you try to be part of the solution, but fail to see how you are part of the problem, so your actions on trying to be part of the solution are false.

                           replyreport
               2. 60

                  Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Gagsil ... but you can regain your respect.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Next time you address me, do so with the correct name. Your true character is showing, in case you didn't know it.
                     
                     As for me respecting myself, I do. As for me respecting other people, I do. As for me respecting stupidity in motion, I will not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Condescension on parade....

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Condescension?
                           
                           Someone not using my Hubname and me pointing it out is condescending?
                           
                           WOW! And you think I have warped thinking?

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Look...he was TRYING to use you Hubname. Show some patience.

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 He was trying to use it? Apparently, you've not seen our previous conversation. And since you haven't, then mind your own business.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 59

                              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              And I didn't say you have warped thinking. The man is learning our language. A little leeway would be a friendly gesture.
                              You do have some friendly in there don't you?

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 The man knows our language. He has enough of a working knowledge of English(American), to carry on a conversation.
                                 Sarcasm? or Stupidity in motion? I'll decide later.

                                 replyreport
   3. 60

      Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I worked with Amish people. Some have no idea what sacrifice they made, but voluntarily. What may get me that people in Gov. will tell me how I suppose to live?

      replyreport
6. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   The Amish started out in the preindustrial age which brought all of the technology. For us, addicted to this world, it is harder to regress to where the Amish are. Maybe occurrences will be that force us to go there, but we won't go willingly.

   replyreport
7. 72

   jacharlessposted 12 years ago

   Perhaps what I am explaining is either being misinterpreted else I am not clarifying.
   
   Dopes watching tv would be a luxury, and therefore subject to the common rules of economics.
   
   True, the restraint of precisely these three items is what moves the economic world. In short: work and make money or starve.
   
   This, to me, is a very old, outdated and disgustingly hackneyed slaving tactic. True, the idea of provision of just these three elements would change the economic juggernaut, but I do not think it would end it. On the contrary, it would remove the stumbling block and allow more rigorous and precise development of products, technologies, etc, yes?
   
   James

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gasil, if my English is bothering you so much you are welcome not to read my comments.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Your English doesn't bother me. And you not knowing how to use a keyboard and the eyes you have in your head, in unison, is a problem.
         
         Spelling my Hubname isn't difficult considering all you have to do is look at my avatar to know how to spell it.
         
         So, no I don't think you spelling it incorrectly was done on accident. It's not the first time you've done it.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Who has the ego now?

            replyreport
         2. 59

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't do that if you did not spend so much time trying to correct people's grammar and so forth. If you have points get on with them.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So I am going to do it for him? Right?
      In short someone will have to. It will not materialize out of thin air.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         First, it would be nicer -more civil- if you modified your tone.
         Second, I DID state in the OP: this: All persons shall receive, without charge, those things required for essential existence, either by self-development or federally mandated provision.
         
         So, your misread notion of the government "handing" anything to people is ridiculous. As for "materializing out of thin air", exactly what are you referencing?
         
         In addition, the statement: "we do not want the government dictating how they should live" is exactly what present governments worldwide are doing. They dictate what is grown, how much, the commodity value -import & export, the water provision and especially the housing market. If you don't believe be, look up the FFR, Municipal Leverage, and take a gander at the present housing crisis, etc.
         
         Regarding the items I mentioned, in fact, what is known as the "middle class" of America must use over half -if not 3/4 of their annual "sweat and labor" dollars simply to cover just the cost of having a place to sleep, shower, shave and purchase basic foods to sustain themselves. drinking water is optional, bottled mostly. this is entirely due to the structure of these necessary provisions, based on economics. so, I do not see how anything is essentially being handed to anyone. Possibly a small amount of people using the FEM act or the other one -umm, Federal Assistance Program, might be using the system. But the system is equally using them, which they know.
         
         Stating humans would become lazy if these things are provided is also ridiculous. Humans -especially Westerners, are very creative, innovative people, from technologist to street hustler. and with the stress of mere survival removed, would be more inclined to hone that creativity. further, doing this would remove much Governmental control, focusing instead on the Luxury portion -meaning the Free Market, like phones, tv, moon-jumping sneakers, pin ball games -you get the picture.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh no I saw the self-development and know there are people that will do that if given the chance.
            However we have damaged this concept because so many already live under the impression that it will be given to them without any input on their part. Politicians will fight for their right to do just that.
            I apologize if you feel my tone was somehow wrong. I have had an irritant here and it bleeds through sometimes.
            Still....this is no new idea you bring about.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No worries on the tone.
               But essentially what I am saying is this:
               
               Here is a box of seeds, grow your food, if you can't we'll help you.
               Here's the wood, build your house, if you can't we'll help.
               The water thing we'll cover because of how the system is set up for sanitation.
               
               This removes the social burden of necessity-by-existence; removes Federally Regulated/Imposed programs for these items, as well as, much of the commodities and housing market. It then elevates those markets to the status of Leisure or Luxuries {items not required for a healthy existence}. Essentially, what people would be working for is what they are supposed to: luxury, instead of living necessities. this makes work more productive and fun.
               
               I also think it would stimulate better education -equal education- and thus increase the precision of social development, technologies, products.
               
               James.

               replyreport
8. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   Well, another forum title that wont go away...
   
   My 2-cents:
   
   We can't afford what we want.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Laurinzo Scottposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well the thing is that there is no perfect sytem of government. The common factor amongst the downfall of all models of society, has been ego. Children are for instance so ' fun to be around until that ego starts growing. Any form of governing could prosper also, until the ego becomes to great.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Good Point.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            General statement.
            I have not seen many socialists who were not rude, tactless, bullies or dangerous. My preference is hating socialism. In the contrary I do not hate people.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You can't have looked very hard my friend.

               replyreport