Forum Post: Equality in slavery or inequality in freedom?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 12:19 p.m. EST by aries
(463)
from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
take your pick
False perception of conflict propagated by right-wing troll.
All 3 or Death!
Exactly; we don't want strict equality of outcome so much as we want true equality of opportunity and we want a far sturdier floor underneath the American people.
equal rights doesn't mean equal results
Sounds like an excuse and a pretext for turning a blind eye on inequality.
no - I recognize people are different so how can you expect equal outcomes without taking from some by force & redistributing to others?
You mean like when the US went in and bombed the hell out of Iraq and then "redistributed" the oil to US corporations?
Capitalists don't care about "freedom", unless it means their "freedom" to rape, pillage and steal.
We are a nation of capitalists. That is our system. That is how we work. Not going to change anytime soon. I don't know of a better system. It has given the best standard of living in the world for many years. If you want to open a hot dog stand and work hard, you can open many more if you dogs are good and still become a millionaire. You can still be a success in America if you work hard. How cool is that?
We were capitalists in the 40s thru 70s when inequality was kept in check by New Deal programs. Few called it socialism then, but now it's the devil coming for your capitalism. Odd.
What do we replace it with? A lot of people hate our system but no one tells me what would replace it. And how would would we do it?
I would just get rid of anything done or inspired by Reagan and Friedman. And some other things like public campaign finance and ditching corporate personhood. No replacement necessary.
Good idea! Does that include stopping the unions from giving millions to the DNC from dues without even asking the workers if they can?
Yes. 100% public campaign financing. Alternately also allow up to $100 by individual contributors - in which case you can be sure most union members would donate to dems, but no matter.
I like the way you think. These are the kind of things we should work on. Not the impossible stuff. At least not now. Baby steps. We must stop all big money to politics.
That's what OWS is about. All these radical ideas like RBE and various forms of communism are just the product of a few idealistic individuals. The single biggest demand that's held in common by supporters is money out of politics, followed by re-regulation of the financial sector and undoing Citizens United.
You have good ideas. I think OWS needs to change it's image and turn to suits and coats and show the US that they mean business. We need folks like you to come forward and be a leader and explain in a better way instead of a rant to tell America in a skillful manner what OWS is all about. I think it would be better than large protests.
I disagree.
The Resource Based Economic model has a long history dating back before Buckminster Fuller and a lot of support both here and around the world.
Meanwhile Communism, Socialism, Green Anarchism, Left-Libertarianism and their variants are all still major players in the ideological hearts and minds of Americans.
What you are seeing is a global reawakening of the Left. It truly is happening around the world and in this country. Fueled by the internet (or as I like to call it: Gutenberg 2.0), more and more people are becoming aware of just how deeply corrupted our system has become. And they wont stand for it. Various factions are becoming aligned against a common enemy and setting aside ideological differences to solve the common problem of unchecked greed and legislative abuse.
The last time the world saw a movement like this, it led to The Age of Enlightenment, which culminated in vast, sweeping changes on both ends of the political spectrum and led to everything from the French Revolution to Bolshevism, Democratic Republics to The Bill of Rights.
This is not going away.
The world is about to change... For the better.
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
Yeah..25-30yrs ago it was pretty damn easy.Not now! Not without paying for a license,a permit and inspection.Not even couting the food or cart you gotta purchase. CaChing,CaChing before you begin.
Yes, but you can still do it! You can still work hard and start a business with a good idea. Folks are still doing it everyday. Folks are still inventing. I have friends who are doing it!
The entire system is rigged against the middle-class. The banks don't lend. Many people do not have that "capitol" anymore. They are barely getting by. 20-25yrs it was very easy to set up a business.One didn't need the banks or exceptional credit. All that has changed. Small businesses suffer the most.People who really want to set up shop find it harder to do today.Hence the one of reasons WHY #OWS has come into existence.
Capitolism has become a very EVIL system. It protects and grows for corporations and the government and sucks the life out of the rest of US the hardworking American people.
But what would take the place of capitolism? I don't know of a better system? What would happen to all the corporations like Coca-Cola? Or Starbucks? We love most of our corporations. Everything we buy comes from a corporation. Would you want most of them to go away and then have State owned Corporations? What about Big 5? Or Vizio?
Go back to small business owners that are local in every area of the nation and buy from them. Bring back our farming so we can get healthier produce. Bring back our food animals without antibiotics in our meat supply. Make all the 1% leave this country and allow us to build a new government and society that is based on the needs of the people. For starters!
Your story can never happen. America loves Ford and Jack in the box. We love Sony and Chevy. We love in and out burgers. Your story is not real. America loves electronic stuff. We could never give up our cell phones or twitter and facebook. Who runs those? Huge corporations. Civil war first.
I hate to break it to you but this reality is not going to last either.
At least I am on the side that has all the power.
can you provide some backup for you allegations about the oil please. I'd like to look into that.
Google?
https://encrypted.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=us+gives+oil+contracts&btnG=Search
http://tinyurl.com/crfzp2d
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-iraq-gas-exclusive-idUSTRE77S1TO20110829
http://www.ordons.com/home/news-videos/video/129-dn-us-gives-usd107b-in-contracts-to-firms-busting-iran-sanctions.html
http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_law_in_the_United_States
actually, we should be confiscating the oil to pay for the war. had they not been blocking the inspections - none of this would have been necessary. Had they not invaded Kuwait they wouldn't have even been on our radar. had they not violated dozens of UN sanctions maybe they would have had a better case. Come to think of it - I am glad we did what we did. Thanks !
Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent.
He murdered his legal democratic opposition, installed himself as dictator and remade the Baath party in his image.
All this was at the whim of the CIA to use him as a pawn against Iran.
Eventually, he tried to act against the western interests that installed him and they brought "Regime-Change"...aka lots of fucking collateral damage...
The US engineered Iraq's destruction decades prior to our own; They did this with Afghanistan as well.
All was done so the investor class may gain economic benefit; Regular Americans gained nothing.
In fact, we are all paying for these deeds right now, as the people who designed them are insulated from their repercussions.
ok - and OWS is the answer lol!
At least they are bringing the conversion to the surface of social discussion, even if they may not have or not not eventually find a solution.
Having this conversion in the mainstream and in homes throughout the country will lead to changing the problem. Maybe OWS will provide a solution maybe they won't, but the protests and their message are important.
Why are you so dismissive of the criticism against Wall Street?
Do you Work There?
because they are not the problem. you just don't like hearing about people making millions and being at the center of the collapse. Why are you so dismissive of not blaming the government? The government repealed Glass-Steagal, the government forced banks to lend money to people who could not pay it back all in the name of equallity in home ownership. Look at Barney Frank if you want a target. Do a little research on him. You cant repeal glass steagal and have social engineering at the same time.
So you're glad that millions of lives were lost in a cruel, unjust, illegal and totally unjustifiable war that was sold to the American public based on lies and which has cost US tax payers Billions?
...Money that could have been spent on Green Energy, jobs for millions of Americans, the retooling of our industrial infrastructure, education.
You are completely insane.
what war is justifiable? Lets not forget that 70% of the engineers that started silicon valley started in defense industries ... internet, defense spending ... lasers, defense spending ... computers, defense spending ... nuclear power, defense spending ... emergency medical equipment, defense spending ... interstate highway system, DEFENSE SPENDING, yes Eisenhower got the idea from the German Autoban with was built to move troops around the country easier.
both houses of congress voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force . Go lobby your congressman & senator. Green energy - Like Solyndra - there's 1/2 a billion down the tube in one shot !
Congress is corrupt and we should not have to buy their votes.
so vote them out. that's the way it works. crapping on the sidewalk is futile
Until the systematic corruption of our government is addressed, that would be futile as well.
And I have never crapped on anyone's sidewalk.
Equality doesn't mean everyone the same, either.
no - you just want to force outcomes to be equal that's all.
What do you define equality as?
"Social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and the extent of property rights. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality
Marxist fantasy. Why are the leftists so obsessed with what other people have? How does that affect you? How are they keeping you from improving your lot in life?
Because on a finite planet with finite resources and a rapidly collapsing ecosystem, there is no excuse for greed and waste.
Because in a world where people starve to death every day for lack of resources and infrastructure, there is no excuse for mega-yachts and sports cars.
Because in a world where great fortunes are always made on the backs of the poor and oppressed, there is no excuse for great fortune.
Also, Marx has nothing to do with it.
'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' goes all the way back before the French Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
inequality is slavery.
no - inequality is people being different. Slavery is what we had prior to the civil war. Your assertion that what you are experiencing today in the U.S. is an affront to all blacks.
First of all your entire question presents a false dichotomy. It presumes that a situation of economic equality requires a state to enforce it, however this is not the only possibility that could arise. There are any multitude of situations that could arise that one could imagine should they choose to move beyond the constraints of what is presumed to be the naturally true.
Second of all your counter argument negates your initial case, if it is an a front to a specific group who suffered under a specific type of slavery to say inequality is slavery, than it is an a front to that same group to assert that state enforced equality is an a front.
Third it is fallacy by "Red Herring" that is you attempt to distract from the term slavery which means "...a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work." by citing a specific (and deplorable by all accounts except the most malicious) and further you use this red herring to attempt to make me look bad, all while failing to refute my point.
It is in fact the case that in our system, if you are not economically privilidged you are trained through the education system to ignore your inner passions and desires, in favor of merit awarded to you by an external and empowered body. This in essence makes you property to that empowered body. The training then makes one into a mediocre employee (if you do not make it to higher education or are especially gifted and free thinking) as such you can expect to be locked into a system in which you owe more money than you can earn. If you do go into higher education, once again you end up oweing more money than you are likely to earn. This means you work and do not see the benefit.
Some make it out of the system, only to find that they are required to continue to turn a profit for others. Few make it out completely. If you are one, you are an outlier and an anecdote, not a basis for a rational or moral argument.
That was really well put.
Permission to quote?
Sure if you correct my grammar.
i too liked your commit.
dichotomy - big word - I am impressed
good counter argument, when in doubt, by condescending to imply that you are smart and therefor need not challenge the strong case against you. It is a slightly sophisticated form of Ad Hominem attack, in essence you are implying that I the presenter of the counter argument is "too stupid to waste time on" when in fact all you have done is attacked me and not proven false my arguments.
Please address the issues.
"Ad Hominem" you are trying to impress me again with your big words lol!
Just because one is impressed, does not mean that was the intention of the writer.
please refer to previous response for this response.
And yet you fail to address any of the points that the poster has made.
This demonstrates both mental laziness and an unwillingness to engage in rational debate. If you are going to engage in an argument, at least hold up your end with a decent effort.
I am the one who posted the post lol! you can have freedom & inequality or equality with a very low standard of living. I choose freedom and I'll make it on my own thank you.
This thinking is false dualism.
This dichotomy is an illusion, just like the only two choices that you offer.
There is a better, third way.
what is this third way you speak of ? I think that is what everyone outside OWS wants to know.
The fact that you even had to ask is demonstrative testament to your complete ignorance on modern political thought.
Google?
http://www.google.co.vi/search?q=third+way&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Why do conservatives seem to think we're still living in the 1700s?
ok - now "false dichotomy" - they've got you using all the buzz words lol! The path of your life is yours to choose. So far anyway. Stop blaming others for your shortcomings. Plenty of underprivileged manage to excel in the face of adversity. What is your excuse again ?
false dichotomy is not a "buzz word" it is a word to describe the fallacy of presenting to cases as if they where the only options to choose from.
I blame nobody for my short comings, and do very well in life. I also know what is rationally and morally right because I completely think for myself.
I am still waiting for a coherent counter argument, rather than a series of fallacies.
the counter argument is - as long as the use of force is not involved I am all for it. Free to choose is my motto. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about? Yet I cannot choose to opt out of Social Security, I cannot opt out of public ed unless I am rich enough to afford both taxes for pubic ed & my private ed. I cannot opt out of Obamacare if I choose to self insure.
You should be glad you can't opt out of Social Security.
Especially seeing as how Ayn Rand died penniless.
...Collecting welfare and eating her own words.
free to choose - or dependency like a child. take your pick
False dualism.
There is a better, third way.
the third way is what?
Google?
http://www.google.co.vi/search?q=third+way&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The fact that you even had to ask is demonstrative testament to your complete ignorance on modern political thought.
Why do conservatives seem to think we're still living in the 1700s?
the fact that you refuse to let me in on the secret means you are just following the herd off a cliff. don't just fire a link at me - tell me - in your own words what this third way is. I bet you don't even know - because no-one has articulated it yet.
We had it, the 40s-70s, the time known as the liberal consensus, before market extremists took over.
There's no "secret".
The "secret" is you study the problem, read all of the relevant information and then form your own opinion.
You seem more intent on parroting the dichotomy between one of two competing popular ideologies. I am talking about taking what works from each and synthesizing a new approach based on skepticism, rationality and ethics.
Hence, "third way".
As for trying to nail down a specific set of policies and attitudes and then calling that "third way", this is impossible because it categorically includes any and all policies and procedures that are outside of the lens of partisan politics, be they "non-partisan", "bi-partisan", "radical", "progressive" or "centrist", et al.
just as I suspected yda yada yada all hot air. You dont have a clue what the third way is lol! Following the herd over a cliff lol! dont hit the ground too hard
If your were as articulate as you are persistent, you might actually say something for once.
So far all you've done is level ad hominem attacks and lazy derisive statements.
It is clear that you have no vision or intellect.
which is an interesting red herring, but not actually a counter argument.
Poster is not "using buzzwords" s/he is describing accurately that nature and scope of the opponent's attack.
Also, nowhere in the post does the poster "blam[e] others for [his/her] shortcomings".
On the contrary, the entire post is dedicated to analyzing and eviscerating the fallacious ad-hominem attack that was presented.
and you still cant tell me what this third way is.
Like I said:
You study the problem, read all of the relevant information and then form your own opinion.
I am talking about taking what works from each and synthesizing a new approach based on skepticism, rationality and ethics. Syncretic cooperation. Inclusiveness. Plurality.
Hence, "third way".
As for trying to nail down a specific set of policies and attitudes and then calling that "third way", this is impossible because it categorically includes any and all policies and procedures that are outside of the lens of partisan politics, be they "non-partisan", "bi-partisan", "radical", "progressive" or "centrist", et al.
You seem more intent on parroting the dichotomy between one of two competing popular ideologies.
so basically your all talk lol!
Exactly what course of action would you prefer?
The pen is mightier than the sword.
(or: in this case - the personal computer is mightier than the tear-gas canister)
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
Like actually? Is this really a topic?
Freedom. And fuck you for bringing this up.
uh oh - someone is very sensitive lol! like actually - are you a valley girl or something?
Something like that. But suggesting that you're worse off than a slave is ridiculous.
I'm not suggesting anyone is worse off than a slave. I am pointing out that when you become dependent on government you are enslaved by them. Government giving out free stuff is just a tool to get you to vote for them. look what happens when anyone tries to reform entitlements - people freak out!
inequality in freedom is better than Big government violating personal freedom under the name of equality.
I like inequality with the chance to move up if you work at it. There can never be true equality anyhow.
When it comes to describing my political view, I’d say I’m a libertarian when it comes to social interactions, a socialist when it comes to regulating business transactions and a democrat at heart, willing to compromise as a republican citizen which pretty much makes me an independent looking for a third way.
ows chooses-- EQUALITY IN FREEDOM--------
the 99% (us) are already equal in slavery--- the 1% already have the freedom to oppress us all
[Removed]
First of all the 99% are not enslaved. Check your definition of slavery. Second of all equality & freedom are impossible. What is required to achieve economic equality requires confiscation of other peoples productivity. Therefore they are not free. Also - when you attempt this confiscation, people stop producing and you fail to achieve your objective. Look at the economies with the most equality. The 99% are poor & the rich are still there.
The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor. But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view
I'll let you find out on your own who said that ;)
Profit demands confiscation of other people's productivity, so we already have that. Profit is money skimmed from the difference between sale price and what workers and suppliers are paid, and you don't have to lift a finger to get it, you just have to own shares or title. The workers produce that value, the owner receives it, without needing to produce or contribute anything at all.
What do you mean by 'confiscation'? I hear you suggesting that the product of a man who shakes french fry baskets in hot oil is forcefully taken from him. But what has he actually produced? He did not cut the potatoes, he did not grow the potatoes, he did not extract the oil, he did not build the baskets or the fryers, he did not build the building in which he works. All he did was move the fries around and put them in a box and hand them to someone else. In exchange for doing this, his employer gives him a share of the profit generated from the sale of the fries. Without the employee, the owner of the restaurant would have had to do that work by himself. He pays the employee for relieving him of that responsibility.
Furthermore, the employee would not have been shaking those fry baskets if not for the employer. He would have been working on a farm all day long in order to provide for his own physiological needs. He moves off the farm and takes a position as a fry cook because the employer offers him the ability to perform a different kind of work in exchange for some of the wealth the business generates. This allows the employee to purchase those physiological essentials (and whatever else he has money left over for) from others who own more productive farms and can produce more with less effort.
The employer does not confiscate the products of the farm that the employee would otherwise be working on. He offers the employee the means to acquire the wealth that would have otherwise been generated by the farm in exchange for his labor.
I hear you suggesting that the product of a man who shakes french fry baskets in hot oil is forcefully taken from him. But what has he actually produced? He did not cut the potatoes, he did not grow the potatoes, he did not extract the oil, he did not build the baskets or the fryers, he did not build the building in which he works.
He produced cooked fries. All the other things you mention were produced by other workers. None of it was made by an investor, yet they reap the profits from it.
He moves off the farm and takes a position as a fry cook because the employer offers him the ability to perform a different kind of work in exchange for some of the wealth the business generates.
All the wealth the business generates is ultimately produced by the people who work there.
The restaurant didn't spontaneously appear filled with workers. Someone (the owner) planned it, purchased the work required to build it, purchased the goods that had to be prepared, purchased the labor required to run it. Designed the schedule for those workers, etc. And yet you say he didn't produce any wealth? None of that would have happened if not for him. It simply wouldn't exist. The employee would still be working on the farm.
The people who work there are compensated for their 'production'. And yes, the employee did 'produce' cooked fries. But he does not own the potatoes or the oil or the baskets or any of it. He could not have 'produced' those cooked fries if he were not an employee working there. He owns his own ability, which he offers to the owner of the establishment in exchange for compensation.
Someone (the owner) planned it, purchased the work required to build it, purchased the goods that had to be prepared, purchased the labor required to run it. Designed the schedule for those workers, etc.
Come live in the real world, where all that is done by managers (who are employees, except in small businesses, and even there the owner is technically an employee as manager and draws pay as an employee for filling that role, in addition to profits from ownership).
And yes, the employee did 'produce' cooked fries. But he does not own the potatoes or the oil or the baskets or any of it. He could not have 'produced' those cooked fries if he were not an employee working there.
Neither the potatoes nor the oil nor the baskets could have been produced by an investor either (unless he also happened to be a basket worker or whatnot, but not in his role as investor). They are all produced by other workers.
Are you trying to prove your point "that profit demands confiscation of other people's productivity" or are we talking about something else now?
I guess you haven't got any answer to my point about managers? Tell me what role an investor has in any of the production chain for the fries (and no, he doesn't contract the suppliers even). All he does is own a share in the business that entitles him to draw money out of it, value that is produced by the people who work there (including the manager). He has no role at all in producing any of that value.
If by 'investor' you mean someone who lends money that the owner didn't have so that the owner could build his restaurant, who then takes a share of the profits of the business in exchange for his initial investment, then his role is that of the owner as I explained above (or in this case, a partial owner). If you mean something else by 'investor', please clarify. I was originally only responding to the idea you put forth that 'profit demands confiscation of other people's productivity'.
You're making a distinction between investor and owner which doesn't exist in, say, a publicly traded company. The shareholders are the owners.
I pretty much accept the basic arrangement as being what it is. I'm not against capitalism (I'm a Keynesian, so my model differs from radical libertarian capitalism, but I do believe in markets). I just don't feel the need to be a cheerleader about it and ignore its basic realities. They aren't all pretty. Dogs are wonderful, but their poop is disgusting. I still have a dog; I love my dog; but I don't pretend his shit doesn't stink. I just accept that as a basic, albeit somewhat inconvenient, truth about my dog.
I wasn't talking about a publicly traded company. I was talking about the nature of profit.
Profit is derived from a voluntary arrangement between employee & employer. No one id forcing you to work for anybody. Take your trade & shop around. If your trade provides insufficient income, find a new one that does.
Non-sequitur. That it derives from a "voluntary" agreement is not relevant to the point I was making. "Voluntary" or not, it is still a confiscation of value produced by labour.
totally irrational statement. The hiring employee makes the offer - you either accept or reject the offer - period.
I don't think you really comprehend what rationality consists of, or you wouldn't keep spouting non-sequiturs. This isn't about whether profit is "fair" or not. It's about what profit is and how it is obtained, and that is by confiscating value others have produced. They may have voluntarily allowed you to do that, but that doesn't change the fact.
If I allow you to paint my car red, you painted my car red. It's not green because I allowed you to do it, and red if I didn't. If it's red, it's red, whether I allowed it or not.
If your car was painted red without your consent there are reparations in a court of law. A business cannot hire you without your consent. They put up a help wanted sign, you ask for a job. What is so confusing about that? Additionally your consent is ongoing every day you show up for work.
Consent is not the issue - what is so confusing about that?
Whether I consent to my car being painted or not isn't the issue, and doesn't change the colour that it was painted. Whether you consent to your house being square or not doesn't make it round. What is, is. What profit actually is, is not determined by whether its consented to or not.
Profit has nothing to do with the arrangement consented to by the worker. All that matters to the worker is what was agreed upon on condition of employment. Your leftist professors have you all confused with how the world works & it is detrimental to your life.
Profit has nothing to do with the arrangement consented to by the worker.
Of course it does. It's so sad today that people can't comprehend basic things. They think a worker goes in like a drone and earns hourly wage and that's all that matters, no wonder our economy is going in the crapper just like the Soviets where workers weren't motivated and didn't really care about their workplace because they didn't see themselves as stakeholders in it. Just like what is happening to us now because of these sorts of silly assumptions.
I am a businessman, I make widgets, I want to expand & make more widgets, I put up a help wanted sign and offer $7.25 per hr to help me make widgets, You come to me & apply for the job and agree to work for the advertised wages, What is the problem again?
You don't make the widgets, the guy you hired does. And you probably didn't hire him, a manager (who is also an employee) did.
Do you think Wal-Mart's shareholders hire the employees or have anything at all do with hiring the workers, stocking the shelves, or any of that? This is the real world we're talking about here.
definition of slavery----
is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Conditions that can be considered slavery include debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[2]
so how are you being treated like property and forced to work?
Resource Based Economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs
The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
so basically this movement is about fantasy no?
There has never been equality in slavery and there doesn't have to be inequality in freedom.
if you say so. Just going by history. you can dream all you want. It wont change anything. Everyone can be equally poor or their can be varying degrees of prosperity for all. At least in a free society those willing to make the effort can improve their lot. Look at any centrally planned economy, then look at Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada now is more free than the U.S. ,Australia.
Every one of those places is more equal than the US.
so - why not move there?
That didn't take long. :)
OWS is not a movement for equality. It is a movement for fairness.
everyone's idea of what is fair varies. My idea of fair is equal opportunity not equal outcomes. My idea of fair is to be left alone to pursue my life not be subject to the use of force. 15% of every dollar I earned confiscated by Social Security tax. Forced to pay school tax so my kids can be indoctrinated in the government school where God is banned & I have no choice unless I can afford both public school taxes & private school. There is nothing more divisive than our public education system.
I totally get what you are saying. Personally, I'm not religious and cannot stand the fact that my kids are forced to sing religious songs in my public school at Christmas time. LOL! We are all different and that is what makes this country great. We are all free to believe and feel what we want. But, if workers can't earn enough to live on, that is something to at least talk about. Most workers don't have the luxury to just quit a job to find another that pays better and corporations know this and so exploit them.
it's all about choice. Vouchers solve this problem. The government doesn't want you to have choice. A red flag should go up any time your choice is reduced or eliminated by use of force. That is what tyranny is. Mandated healthcare = force = tyranny.
yea - I just don't see the exploitation part I guess. No one is forcing them to work there.
Yes. They are forced to work at these jobs because those are the jobs that are available and people need to eat. Workers do not have the power that corporations have. That is why unions formed in the first place. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but 30 years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the average worker's wage. Today the average CEO is paid 343 times the average worker's wage. To me, that represents greed and exploitation.
how do these people wind up in this situation in the first place? do they bear any responsibility at all for the decisions they make. The single biggest factor of being in poverty is a single parent household. Does the taxpayer or an employer need to be responsible for propping that up? who is responsible for teenage pregnancy the taxpayer & /or employers? Does personal responsibility come in to play here at all?
Actually, no, not when there aren't enough jobs to go around. I agree with you that our nation has a lot of social problems, but I don't think it is fair to blame people for their poor skills or lack of ability. If you're doing better than that good for you. I'm well educated and stayed home to raise my kids, but I'm not going to criticize someone who didn't have those opportunities and I don't want people in my country living in poverty who work full time.
if you want a job bad enough you will get one. plenty of people have worked their way out of poverty to become successful. What you are saying is a cop out. That's not to say there are not bumps in the road.
it is better to be divided in Truth Then United in Error.
This is a false dichotomy. As a counterpoint I direct you to Japan. It has a relatively equal society and maintains an extremely powerful economy, barring random events like the recent earthquake. I can also direct you towards Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as happy, equal societies that enjoy a fair bit of freedom. The two are not mutually exclusive, though it can be argued that they are codependent.
Equality in decision-making. Freedom, this is when conscience is clear. But at the same time, when - conscience it is.
oh yea direct democracy - I've heard of this - mob rule essentially. Unless you can clarify further with some specifics. take number 1 for instance. Walk me thru how this would happen.
No crowds, but People. What's the difference? In creation.
Doublespeak, by any means possible?
You left off wealth is poverty.
What kind of stupid question is this?
a stupid question is the only kind you have a chance of answering lol
I want to be a CEO of a wall street firm in freedom
well - better get to work
Obamacare....!
Economic Justice, the name tells you everything both are imaginary concepts. For some reason people think that life is supposed to walk some magical line where things are evenly distributed and all things are equal ... its annoying at times. When there is production, the people who financially funded the venture make the most, followed by the person or people who came up with the idea, and what ever is left over goes to cost of production where wages exist. "Economic inequality" is a side effect of technological progression and innovation, not some conspiracy. Look at it this way, think incomes of musicians or actors 200 years ago ... yes, you had a handful of stars in the big cities and even they didn't make much, but the difference between what they made and a traveling show or music group was nill. Now lets bring in the movie and the record, the technology allows one performance to be duplicated with no additional effort by the artist ... now the difference between the average and the superstar is exponential, the AVERAGE album sells 7-10k copies ... Michael Jackson's "Thriller" sold 140 mil. The AVERAGE actor is part time and makes less than $7k a year doing it ... how many actors make $20mil or more per film? So this is why increasingly the difference between the "average" or middle class worker and the "superstars" or "1%ers" is so great ... not some Illuminati plot to keep people down. on a final note, think about JK Rowling, she has made $1 bil on the Harry Potter series ... and no one is protesting her, saying she is greedy, or exploiting the 99%. She made the lionshare of the money ... did she rob the actors, the people who actually printed and bound her books or package her DVDs, the set people for the movies? Why aren't we Occupying Barnes&Nobles demanding she stop hoarding the book wealth? let me guess she's "different", yeah right, a billionaire is a billionaire no matter the source of their wealth.
It's interesting that you were so furiously down-voted. I think you have a good point, although I don't agree with it. "Artists" don't set-up the system, they only exploit it. Without the entertainment industry dumping pure rubbish into the media, we wouldn't even know who J.K. Rowling is.
WallStreet bankers just exploit the system too ...
The high-level bankers actually change the system to better suit them.
why are you talking about money and profit? what does that have to do with anything?