@Antrim
I was planning to do this all along but I didn't do it immediately because it's going to take a while and I didn't feel like it at the time. Judging from your premature reply everything you said about being reasonable and civil was a load of crap but I expected that anyway. I know all too well the extent of your bias and disdain for collectivist sentiments so I don't expect to convince you or receive any kind of constructive feedback but I will do it anyway just to practice articulating it.
The system I ultimately advocate is called a Resource Based Economy. A more familiar set of terms which also describes what it is would be "technocratic socialism". What that essentially means is that everyone is equally entitled to resources but the overall decision-making is done through a process of determining the best course of action rather than through democracy or authority placed in individuals. This is not to say that individuals will not make personal choices, or that democracy won't be used in certain contexts, or even that there won't be individuals who have more of a say in certain things. It means that every decision that is made which effects society will be made using an appropriate methodology. The exact methodology which is used depends on the issue at hand, but the point is the decisions are no longer based on authority or opinion but on a science-based process of determining the objectively optimal way to do things.
In order to understand how this would work, it is important to realize that this system is not meant to be implemented in the world as it is now. It can only work in a society which is both culturally and technologically more advanced than humans are now. In order to get there it will require multiple stages of transformation but I'll probably get more into that later if you want. Capitalism is not something which has existed forever or will exist forever, it is just another stage in a process of socio-economic evolution. Just as feudalism was necessary for capitalism to exist, other forms of socialism are necessary for the RBE to exist. RBE is very similar to Communism but differs in it's implementation and it's "technocratic" elements. I disagree with Marx for instance, on his method of achieving socialism by replacing the old state with a new one. I think that the state can "wither away" without a bloody revolution and that things can change more gradually. That is not to say I am an old fashioned Soc-Dem though, because I am not. My method is more elaborate than their purely top down strategy. It involves a combination of that as well as a more grass roots changing of the culture but the details of that are too complicated to explain to someone who isn't an "insider" with this type of thing.
More on the dynamic of power/decision making in the RBE and then I will get into how "property" and "ownership" will be handled.
In a pure technocracy the decisions are made by expert "social engineers" and/or by AI programmed to be more logical and impersonal than human beings. This of course sounds very dystopian and probably would be, the RBE however is approximately 70% socialist and 30% technocracy. The Socialism I am talking about is not a centralized state run system but true, fully collectivized socialism. That means there is no state and there is no monetary system, in fact it is much more like democracy than I may have insinuated above but understanding why is a bit tricky. In order to work an RBE needs the general public to be educated and far more objective and enlightened than the people our current cultures produce. The methodological approach I mentioned before would not be something done by a few experts or authority figures but would be taught to every single person in the society. As you might expect, there will always be people who are more intelligent or knowledgeable in certain ways than others so there will be people who are "authorities" in certain fields but there will not be any kind of central decision making body. In an RBE system everyone has the same right to say "this is how things should be" but the one with the best ideas will always be listened to because collective decision making is a scientific process rather than an opinion pole or a government mandate, and as long as you aren't hurting society or any individual there is nothing stopping you from going somewhere else and doing your own thing if you don't like how things are. To reach an RBE system we need to re-condition society in a way that produces reasonable and critical thinkers who are capable of self governance and seeing the long-term benefits of cooperation.
Now on to the issue of "property rights". Property is a social construct, and as such it is not objective, and therefor it is not befitting of a technical culture wherein objectivity is among the highest virtues. In an RBE everyone essentially owns everything and owns nothing equally. This is not to say you can't have "things of your own" but just that there is no social construct involved. In other words you can still have "your own" car or house etc. that is designated for your use, but it's designation is respected out of reason (in order for society to function optimally people must respect each other plus there is no incentive to "steal" because everyone has access to resources) rather than morality or laws. Now you may be wondering how things like this would be enforced if the culture should fail someone in bestowing them with reason and civility, the answer to which is that self-defense is permissible to keep the peace and that the overall collective will side with you if you are in the right and defend you. I will go over in more detail how the peace is kept momentarily. For now I should address the lack of money, which to you would mean a lack of incentive for doing work. As I said in the debate description the "low class" jobs will be phased out in the future, so convincing people to scrub toilets without paying them is a non-issue. Just like with the "crime" issue it mostly comes down to how people are conditioned, by which I do not mean "brainwashed" but rather taught the critical thinking and given the positive upbringing necessary to want to do constructive things because benefiting society is a benefit to yourself, because you know that the more everyone contributes the more things improve. This is the long-term benefit of cooperation I mentioned earlier, something which few people could imagine trusting in for society as a whole because it requires a maturity which few people currently have. Why contribute when you could leech off others and screw them over right? Well in an RBE it's not like they will simply let free loaders and destructive behavior freely slide, but on top of that people will just not think the same as they do now. This brings us to the issue of "crime", they will not see it as an issue of being "immoral" but of being objectively stupid. Anything you do which is good and constructive builds up the civilization that you benefit from every day, and thus it is inherently logical for everyone to cooperate with and build each other up rather than fuck each other over and harm each other, and it is objectively stupid to do destructive things to society. In our current society you are programmed with subjective morality and threatened with man-made laws, but all it takes is for you to simply not give a fuck and think you can get away with it in order for you to break those rules. It is also INCENTIVIZED to do destructive things in many cases, because it is often more beneficial to the individual. Only in a society where everyone equally owns everything and you are taught from the beginning what makes society work optimally to everyone's benefit including your own can these behaviors be bypassed by no longer incentivizing them or allowing for the conditions that produce them. When everyone is born with the same access to food, shelter education etc. and all the things which are necessary for healthy human development then there will be no more thieves and murderers. A person does not simply "choose" to steal, they steal because they do not have things, a person does not simply "choose" to murder, they have mental health issues which have developed for a reason and could have been mitigated with the right know-how.
I downloaded the entire set of GOT the other day. Just waiting for these final episodes to come out.
In my opinion GOT may have the best story of any work of fiction, especially the books. There are others with better settings, better writing etc. but in terms of the story GOT/ASOIAF could very well be the best there is.
pure socialism stifles creativity and motivation. At least to some extent. Why work your brain or body harder if you don’t become better off.
Let's say there are two farms, a capitalist farm and a socialist farm. On the capitalist farm a lot of people are working, but they only get a little bit of what is produced, while one guy who does no work but "owns" the farm gets the majority of what is produced. On the socialist farm, everyone works and everyone is free to come up with ideas to make the farm better, and everyone has access to what the farm produces.
For gods sake will you shut your hole. All you ever do is whine about abortion, you look like a mentally ill freak the way you constantly obsess over this one single issue. There are people dying of war and disease and starvation and the only thing you care about fetuses, and to top it off you LIE and say that "all democrats support unrestricted late-term abortion". You don't say what you do out of compassion, you are just a mindless christian fundamentalist robot. If you really gave a flying cunt about anyone but yourself you would not only TALK about more than just one issue but you would DO SOMETHING about it.
No.
Moderators make things more boring, and they don't always make the right decisions because they don't know what the context of the situation is all the time.
They just get in the way of open discourse, plus every moderator I've ever met was a shit moderator.
