You do I hope realize that not only is that not economically viable for 99% of economic systems (the only cases where it can work are situations like certain countries in the middle east where the government owns the oil and is making such a killing selling it that they can fund everyone's paycheck, again that's the exception) but you're inherently disincentivising the general public from not just sitting on their butts and playing videogames all day, as a result of them doing that innovation outside of a very select populace drops severely, while there may be a minor increase in innovation from intellectuals due to having less requirements on their time. Part of the result of this is anything that would be a minimum wage job goes unfilled which is fine if you've got robots to take care of the position, however at this point we don't and as a result still have a service sector and things like people driving trucks, ships, and cargo planes. It's worth pointing out here that the Romans used slaves in the place of robots to achieve a setup similar to what your asking for for their citizens, which is to say the elite. The problem is that the wealth still inherently needs to be generated, somebody has got to do it, and in the long term the answer for those sectors will be computers and robots but not yet, and someone of course needs to maintain these robots and write programs for these computers...
Originally Posted by blackiwid
Now on the other hand a commune is a very similar setup to what you want however there are very significant limitations to it for someone like you who doesn't want to have to work:
#1. The people who are there need to want to be there, anyone who is just using up resources without wanting to be there and helping is inherently damaging to the commune, as a result you cannot apply this to the general public.
#2. in a commune you *have* to work, no ifs ands or buts about it, otherwise you're wasting the precious resource pool and should be ejected.
#3. In order to insure that #1 happens, there's usually a very strong disincentive to joining the commune, such as a ban on sex while living with the commune.
However these do work, and there are plenty of examples of them, typically associated with monks of various religious organizations
It's worth noting that the F/OSS ecosystem gets away with being a commune and not having the waste of the resources pool problem because there is no inherent cost other than some bandwidth for people to just take and take and never contribute anything back, whereas in a traditional commune you're having to provide for their food, shelter and medical care which are serious costs out of the pool of resources.
now as a final thing to look at: pure capitalism (not corporatism, the difference is in a corporatist society which most modern economies are based on there is government involvement in the system, which is then used by the corporations to create oligolopolies because they can use a mix of regulations, taxes (you could get away with a flat tax type system point is simply that it must not be able to be manipulated by foreign entities) and Intellectual property to keep out their competition, all of which are anathema to pure capitalism, and in a pure capitalist society the only role of the government is that of public land manager and arbiter and it's inherently federalized) revolves around small to medium sized privately owned (the concept of a stockmarket is anathema to pure capitalism) businesses, and letting the system just work without intervention, and as a natural result due to their lack of capability to manipulate the system into favouring them the elite lose their foothold and come tumbling down while the middle class swells and innovation thrives.
Sure you can fail and fail hard but you can actually get back up on your feet and your standard of living is actually going to be rather good, and without the FDA and IP making drugs expensive medicine just became a heck of a lot cheaper (And if you think the FDA actually does anything good, I would like to remind you that JD Rockefeller paid off the FDA to push ingesting crude oil as a supplement and drug because he felt that Standard Oil wasn't making enough money as it was, keep in mind that's just one example what happened to Stevia is another good one, and there are many many situations where the pharmaceutical companies have paid the FDA to block out a smaller competitor and maintain their oligopoly), the Agrofirms would never have come into existence due to there not being intellectual property for them to quickly force farmers into selling out to them (Agrofirms are actually a perfect example for how regulation and intellectual property is simply a tool of corporations to squash their smaller competitor and create or maintain an oligopoly, because you'll note how quickly they came to power and how quickly everything has degraded as a result), the sugar firms wouldn't be able to set up government mandated price setting and the corn industry wouldn't be subsidized to extremes meaning that meat prices would be higher however corn fructose wouldn't have become the standard and as a result the whole weight issue wouldn't be a thing outside of people already prone to weight gain because what the issue is is that when fructose (fruit sugar) is turned into glucose (sugar the body can use) there's a toxin that gets released which the body can normally deal with however due to the hyperconcentration of HFCS and the fact that it's in almost everything the body is bombarded to a point where it can't deal with it anymore and so just stores what it can't deal with in fat (Sucrose doesn't have this problem), and in general the world would be a better place
The limitation for capitalism is that it becomes very messed up very quickly when the government moves from a position of acting as an arbiter protecting people's lives, liberty, and property and acting as a manager for usage, maintenance, and purchase and sale of public land (for obvious reasons the police force belongs to the governments and is not a PMC), because that's when your elites move in and establish oligopolies.
Now before you go on about child labour, factories, and mining. Child labour is a product of poverty and exists for all systems with high levels of poverty, factories, and mining even though they're regulated here continue to be horrible places to work and the real answer to that is technology and more specifically robots not more regulation. There is no getting around the fact that factory work inherently causes Repetitive Strain Injuries and mining is a job that inherently has a high risk of death and personal injury, technology (not regulation) has made this occupation safer but really we need to get rid of the human element in that job altogether, and hand it off to robots thus allowing the minimum line to move up, and skill levels and wealth to go up as a direct consequence.
Then why are there no male quotas for teachers, nurses and other self-perpetuating female-dominated careers?
Originally Posted by archibald
The argument probably being that in most of these professions the entry barrier for men is not as high as it is for women in other occupations. I must admit from my own subjective experience I have not seen a huge shortage of either male nurses and teachers, at least where I live, but I don't have any statistics to back that up (and I am not seeing any statistics here to back up the assertions of others either).
Originally Posted by curaga
Still, feminism is more than just this idea of quotas, and you do not need to agree with the idea of quotas to be a feminist, making this whole thing something of a red herring. Granted, there is actual evidence to show that the original poster on the mailing list supports them, but it is not an idea at the cornerstone of the movement as some people would have you believe.
There are also race based quotas in some institutions that work on a similar principle, which I do assume apply to men as well. Affirmative action and all that.
Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 07-21-2013 at 11:55 AM.
But at the same time without government involvement there would be next to no infrastructure available for work to be done in the economy. Most companies depend significantly on infrastructure which time and time again the private market has shown to be unable to or at least be very inept at providing. And there are some very good reasons for this - the amount of capital needed to maintain and build this infrastructure is almost always beyond that which can be profitably sustained by a smaller operator, meaning that only the government or one of your oligarchies can sustainably provide it. Even with that considered though, most of this infrastructure is still built at a loss, something that only a government can really handle as it does not operate purely on the profit motive. There is also the fact that most infrastructure needs to be a public institution (like the police) in order for it to be reliably used by most private parties without fear of abuse. So if pure Capitalism's greatest flaw is the problems caused by government involvement, it seems to be a flaw that it can not readily escape from.
Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf
Maybe they are doing it on purpose so he is more civil?
That has to be one of the single stupidest things I have heard you say so far. Lets think of some common infrastructures: roads are maintained by private companies that are contracted by the government, if the government didn't pay them then people would have to pay them directly and it would probably cost us a ton less, next time you are stuck in traffic near a person spinning a stop/slow sign ask them how much they are making an hour to do it at tax payers expense. Depending on where you live it would be between $20-30 an hour, the guys running the machines get more. Telecommunication is all run by private companies. Train lines were laid down by private companies and the trains are still run by private companies. Mining, drilling, and logging companies, once again all private. Most industries are nearly entirely private. Most hospitals and the vast majority of insurance companies are also private. There are plenty of private schools that all tend to get far better ratings than public schools to show once again another area where a public institution fails us. Post/delivery services are thriving in the private sector while every week more public post offices close down. Police/military all rely on overpriced equipment bought through government contracts from private companies for extortionary rates that all comes out of the tax payer pockets; once again at much higher prices than private security forces would likely pay, as private companies wouldn't stand for the inflated prices the way corrupt government officials do.
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
Last edited by IanS; 07-21-2013 at 05:45 PM.
This is a really good post. I enjoyed reading it.
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
In Ohio we have our Turnpike which is in the process of being privatized. The state is literally selling it to a foreign company. I don't know the full details on why, but it's clear that the state is losing mountains of money trying to keep this thing maintained. It seems apparent that this company buying the turnpike thinks it can turn it around and make a profit. But what happens if they can't? Do they close it down? That road gets used by millions of people. I personally rely on it. Whats going to happen now?
I'm just pointing out that a hybrid government is a good thing in some cases.
Private business would need to find a way to charge for the use of their road in order to keep it up. So either every road in the country would need to become a toll road (or have some kind of toll attached). Building the infrastructure for that would cost money. If a company had several important roads it seems unlikely that they'd keep the costs down just to be lovely. With a government granting contracts they can go to another company for the same service. When was the last time you saw a toll road reduce its fee?
Originally Posted by IanS
English roll-out of fibre and modbile signal isn't exactly stellar, with some regions simply unable to get any time of broadband or mobile phone signal. I think the situation is similar in the US. Go private infrastructure!
Originally Posted by IanS
In England the trains are run by private companies and the ticket prices are near-extortionate. Contrast to Germany where Deutsche Bahn is owned by the state: tickets are embarassingly cheaper and the trains are much more punctual. Go private infrastructure!
Originally Posted by IanS
Just think about that one for a minute. Many of those private schools charge thousands per term, make all schools like them and suddenly most children's parents can't afford to educate them. Go private infrastructure!
Originally Posted by IanS
Exactly - no private company has ever had anybody corrupt working for them! ;-)
Originally Posted by IanS
Oh I would agree that private infrastructure is far from perfect, but the point I was making is that most of it IS private, and has been since the beginning, to think the government has much of anything to do with it other than as something to be exploited or as a regulatory body is laughable. As to your point on trains, I wasn't so much talking about passanger trains, frieght is still the most important role that trains play a part in and it is vastly cheaper in most cases to move a lot of heavy material over land via train rather than by a fleet of big rigs or by air.
So this thread went from kernel patches to trains?