Some ideas for a fairer, more efficient and less selfish society

[Amorphos]

Some ideas for a fair more efficient and less selfish society

Force private companies to be charitable to save cost/debt? ...and remove the state completely!..

Ideally I don’t believe in small state big society, I believe in complete removal of the state and very big society. In order to achieve this we need to;

a, remove all the instrumentation of the state.
b, remove costs imposed upon the state.

The latter is my main concern here, the more costs the state has the greater its deficit - naturally. If there were no state then private investors would be less inclined to create charges that ultimately they have to pay [even if its largely different groups of inventors].

An example; make the energy industries charge nothing for pensioners and the unemployed. Think of it as a list of all names and you simply cross off those people, this way no cost is incurred such that the govt has to pay for and hence draw money in order to do so. Ultimately it must be less of a cost to the private sector [overall] if the energy companies take a hit, yet the state bureaucracy is removed. Equally pensioners have done their part and should be able to stay warm in winter.
Why not also make payments exponential relative to income!

Another example; make rents for social housing free to pensioners and the unemployed, and also make rents scalable according to income. Originally for these people rent was simply paid from one govt dept to another ~ because council housing was nationalised hence there was very little cost. Since privatisation those rents now have to be paid to a private party, hence is an actual cost we all have to contribute too and which increases the deficit.

Another example; make all schools private and make payments exponential to incomes. We pay for them already so I don’t know why payments for services would get dearer if the math is worked out correctly.

Make all current state services private in a similar manner.

Make all ownership of all businesses shared I.e. no one actually owns 100% of their company, a given percentage would be owned by networks of mutually supporting industries and services. This is instead of taxes remember and would create accountability, as well as an environment where we all work as a team and share some wealth ~ which is better than the current situation where ‘risk is socialised and profits are privatised’.

Change central govt; replace current houses with a house of commerce and another of society and ethics. Lets let the experts deal with the economy and govt [house of ethics] act as its accountability element in the equation. Put democracy into the private sector as now we would vote fro both houses!

Change local govt; replace all councils with a group of local business leaders, these would both run the mutually supporting networks [their businesses included], and local services. Now you get to vote for people who wont bog the whole thing down with bureaucracy, and are experts in finance and business. You also introduce more democracy into govt and business.

THIS IS A DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR IDEAS TOO!

[molonthegreat]

How would the government be able to control that the private companies does do give out these services for free without a bureaucracy? Furthermore how would national defence work without any state at all? Otherwise I think it sounds atrocious since people would lose their incentive to start up businesses without being able to control it themselves and it's fundamentally unfair rewarding unemployed people with free housing and loads of benefits while hard working people have to pay for it.

[Condottiere 40K]

Sounds like the Second Coming.

[Mythos]

The way has been known since the days of Byzantine emperors. Keep the state strong and the rich down. This idea is as simple as it is complex to put into reality.

[Amorphos]

molonthegreat

How would the government be able to control that the private companies does do give out these services for free without a bureaucracy?

Make it law. the local and national commercial and ethical govt would make them adhere. the bureaucracy would be in the private sector, essentially we are running the country as business within that context.

Furthermore how would national defence work without any state at all?

Its in the interest of the private sector [who pay for it anyway] to have a defence for their interests, they’d just pay less for it. I have worked on jobs for the MOD and believe me they get ripped off left right and centre + state bureaucracy removed.

Otherwise I think it sounds atrocious since people would lose their incentive to start up businesses without being able to control it themselves

The amount of control they’d give away would be largely equal in equity to what they do now via taxes and the very cost of the state and deficit etc. Some would loose e.g. energy companies, but what you save by not having a state and a national debt/deficit which is too large to pay, outweighs the costs. This especially when you consider that the investors in both would now be on the same team! To many private companies rip off the state but other private companies would not allow it [e.g. privately built and run hospitals like those in London on the news recently].

and it's fundamentally unfair rewarding unemployed people with free housing and loads of benefits while hard working people have to pay for it.

Give them jobs then! If the private sector cannot do that then its they who are failing. Beside you are not paying any more than you do now, they already get their rent paid for, and moneys for energy ~ all of which is a cost. Remove that cost and you lower the deficit and national debt can be used for other enterprise.

Mythos

The way has been known since the days of Byzantine emperors. Keep the state strong and the rich down. This idea is as simple as it is complex to put into reality.

Is it doing that now? Besides I have put in protections to give accountability, the rich can be as rich as they like, but they wont want to go back to a state system once its gone [hence would maintain the model]. Not to mention they can be voted out of power.

[Mythos]

Mythos

Is it doing that now? Besides I have put in protections to give accountability, the rich can be as rich as they like, but they wont want to go back to a state system once its gone [hence would maintain the model]. Not to mention they can be voted out of power.

The rich are interested in a weak state so they can expand their feuds and they will do everything they can to create them and expand them. I think it is no coincidence that the states that tax the rich heavily (like in Scandinavia) tend to have happier citizens.

[Enemy of the State]

Stop putting a gun to people's heads?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There's no chance of changing things any time soon. We are only capable of considering the 100-250 people closest to us as actual human beings - called out monkey sphere. That's why we get really upset if a friend of ours dies, but don't care if a genocide in Rwanda kills hundreds of thousands.

Human technological progress has hopelessly outstripped human evolution and there is no chance of us evolving to live in the global community we now inhabit. Genetic modification?

The rich are interested in a weak state so they can expand their feuds and they will do everything they can to create them and expand them.

I take it you're a reader of Marx?

I think it is no coincidence that the states that tax the rich heavily (like in Scandinavia) tend to have happier citizens.

That's a myth. And if they're so happier isn't it strange they've all got the highest suicide rate in Europe? Source for your claim.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

That's a myth. And if they're so happier isn't it strange they've all got the highest suicide rate in Europe? Source for your claim.

No, that we got the highest suicide rate is the myth.
When it comes to suicide rates the Scandinavian countries are in the middle.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No, that we got the highest suicide rate is the myth.
When it comes to suicide rates the Scandinavian countries are in the middle.

Hey, I don't post facts that aren't true. Finland has the highest suicide rate in Europe, closely followed by Sweden, according to Eurostat.

[Copperknickers II]

Hey, I don't post facts that aren't true. Finland has the highest suicide rate in Europe, closely followed by Sweden, according to Eurostat.

And indeed the second highest murder rate outside the Eastern Bloc in Europe. cold countries tend to take their toll on people's minds, but they also require that people are rich: think about somewhere like India: if it had the weather of Finland or Alaska half its population would freeze. Even in northern Russia conditions aren't that bad compared with the more temperate places.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Hey, I don't post facts that aren't true. Finland has the highest suicide rate in Europe, closely followed by Sweden, according to Eurostat.

Check again.
Sweden has a lower suicide rate then say Belgium and France.
And even Finland(which isn't even a scandinavian country) gets beaten by countries like Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania and Latvia. Norway is way down and so is Denmark.
Fact is that the scandinavian countries(can include Finland even tho they aren't a scandinavian country but then again people don't bother to find that out) has never had the highest suicide rate, not now not ever. It was a dumb myth created by Eisenhower.

[hellheaven1987]

The only fair method is we give everyone an AK and throw them into a pacific island for a battle royal.

[Mythos]

I take it you're a reader of Marx?

Never read Marx in my life. I am not a communist, more like a centrist with libertarian leanings which are slowly eroding. I have come to think that the interests of the rich (not the well-off, the truly rich) are counter to those of the state and the middle class and therefore their power to corrupt politicians and influence political decisions should be curbed. You might argue that a smaller state means less chances for them to influence decisions but a smaller state might be the road to corporato-cracy and super-rich feudalism.

[Menelik_I]

You might argue that a smaller state means less chances for them to influence decisions but a smaller state might be the road to corporato-cracy and super-rich feudalism.

What do you mean by that?

[Mythos]

What do you mean by that?

The erosion of the middle class and the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of very few. Where the money are, there from flows the power.

Hell, did I say Byzantine emperors? Scratch that, even the ancient Greeks knew that the foundation of a state was the middle class. Pericles said that a poor citizen in a wealthy state is better off than a rich citizen in a poor state.

[Menelik_I]

The erosion of the middle class and the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of very few.

What erosion of the middle class ?

Of all countries in the world, the US is the one with the biggest proportion of middle due to its small government tradition. In fact the Tea Party is a middle class movement.

Countries with relatively smaller government are the ones with bigger middle class.

Where the money are, there from flows the power.

And nothing more convention than a big government to be taken over and used for your own benefits.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Never read Marx in my life. I am not a communist, more like a centrist with libertarian leanings which are slowly eroding. I have come to think that the interests of the rich (not the well-off, the truly rich) are counter to those of the state and the middle class and therefore their power to corrupt politicians and influence political decisions should be curbed. You might argue that a smaller state means less chances for them to influence decisions but a smaller state might be the road to corporato-cracy and super-rich feudalism.

well, this idea of classes competing with one another is written exactly as you claim it here in Das Kapital.

It's frankly a ridiculous idea. No politician in the western world can get away with corruption (and don't link me to some court case of someone charged with corruption, that's prima facie evidence of my position). It's an elected official's best interest to win votes. Accepting bribes in a transparent society is a sure way not only for them to lose their job, but to end up incarcerated.

Which is slowly but surely being eroded while the rich and super-rich accumulate ever increasing amounts of wealth and politicians in their pockets. The only places were the middle class is increasing is BRIC.

You don't seem to understand even elementary economics. Wealth is ever increasing and not only are these "super-rich" not taking anybody else's wealth, but creating their own, in doing so they are aiding other people to create their own wealth.

Let's say a guy sets up a shoe factory. He can make shoes for cheaper than his competitors. His business is very good and he sells millions of shoes. He has been paid money by millions of people. He's very rich.

Now let's look at his customers. Are they poorer? No they are not. They have less money. But they have a pair shoes. Money is not the same as wealth. In fact, they have more money than they would have had, had he not brought the price of shoes down.

So instead of having just a pair of shoes, the customers now have a pair of shoes and some money. The factory owner has the money value of the shoes he created. Both parties are wealthier, because the factory owner has built a factory that churns out wealth for everybody. Money doesn't grow on trees, but wealth very often does.

[Mythos]

well, this idea of classes competing with one another is written exactly as you claim it here in Das Kapital.

The idea that there are people of relative equal wealth that have common interests is not radical. I am sure we can agree on that.

It's frankly a ridiculous idea. No politician in the western world can get away with corruption (and don't link me to some court case of someone charged with corruption, that's prima facie evidence of my position).

What?! Look around you man. Corruption is EVERYWHERE.

You don't seem to understand even elementary economics. Wealth is ever increasing and not only are these "super-rich" not taking anybody else's wealth, but creating their own, in doing so they are aiding other people to create their own wealth.

What matters is not the absolute amount of wealth but how many control how much wealth. If 20 years ago, total wealth was 5 units and the rich controlled 2, today the total wealth might as well be 10 units but the rich control 5 of that. The middle class, the anchor and pillar of every state is becoming less and less relevant. In a few years the wealth might be 20 and the rich will control 15 of that. How is that NOT the erosion of the middle class?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The idea that there are people of relative equal wealth that have common interests is not radical. I am sure we can agree on that.

To the contrary, people of equal wealth usually have diametrically opposed interests. They have and are competing for the same things after all. The idea that conflicting interests of different groups is a bad thing is also marxian and fiction. Conflicting interests in a free market economy makes everybody richer. In fact any interests at all make everybody richer.

What?! Look around you man. Corruption is EVERYWHERE.

This recession is less friendly to corruption than any other period in the last century.

What matters is not the absolute amount of wealth but how many control how much wealth. If 20 years ago, total wealth was 5 units and the rich controlled 2, today the total wealth might as well be 10 units but the rich control 5 of that. The middle class, the anchor and pillar of every state is becoming less and less relevant. In a few years the wealth might be 20 and the rich will control 15 of that. How is that NOT the erosion of the middle class?

Firstly, these are figures you've made up with no relevance to what's actually happening.

And secondly, so what?

And thirdly, stop acting like it's impossible to get rich.