It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Basic Income - The first step to end poverty?
page: 6share:
it is a romantic notion, but highly unlikely. For one you will never get the world united united under one nation.
who would keep the supreme leaders power in check?
With a maximum salary/ income it will still cause less motivation to make new technological and medical advances if you were going to still make the same amount either way, whymake your product better.
who would keep the supreme leaders power in check?
With a maximum salary/ income it will still cause less motivation to make new technological and medical advances if you were going to still make the same amount either way, whymake your product better.
reply to post by dpeacock
There is always this argument that with an income limit the motivation would suffer. I strongly disagree. People who think they are being motivated by money are lying to themselves. This is just another form of greed and has nothing to do with motivation. Someone who enjoys what he / she does will NOT make the hard work dependent on how many money is paid. The work itself is what gives them satisfaction. But greedy people can't even imagine that something like this could even exist!
Today we see too many people pick their jobs because of the money that is being paid. Well, someone who does that is lost in the labyrith of greed which has been installed by TPTB. Just like smokers they love it when you, too fall for this game. Your job will not ever make you happy if you choose it by the amount of money that is paid. This is what's wrong about the world! I know lots of medicine doctors who have only chosen this job because of the money that is involved. But they don't really care for their patients they are just sales people for pharma products. # them - we don't need such suckers.
I believe that limiting the income would have the very positive effect that jobs would only be taken by the ones that love to do them. And that's what is required. To all the greedy people looking for easy money: goodbye!
There is always this argument that with an income limit the motivation would suffer. I strongly disagree. People who think they are being motivated by money are lying to themselves. This is just another form of greed and has nothing to do with motivation. Someone who enjoys what he / she does will NOT make the hard work dependent on how many money is paid. The work itself is what gives them satisfaction. But greedy people can't even imagine that something like this could even exist!
Today we see too many people pick their jobs because of the money that is being paid. Well, someone who does that is lost in the labyrith of greed which has been installed by TPTB. Just like smokers they love it when you, too fall for this game. Your job will not ever make you happy if you choose it by the amount of money that is paid. This is what's wrong about the world! I know lots of medicine doctors who have only chosen this job because of the money that is involved. But they don't really care for their patients they are just sales people for pharma products. # them - we don't need such suckers.
I believe that limiting the income would have the very positive effect that jobs would only be taken by the ones that love to do them. And that's what is required. To all the greedy people looking for easy money: goodbye!
edit on 16-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)
I work administering a charity based emergency assistance program for those affected by poverty in my community. By far and away the primary cause
of poverty in my experience is individual decision making.
Provide all the basic income you want, there will still be those that live in poverty. Always has been, always will be. Lack of money is not the problem, it's simply a symptom. Poverty is it's own condition.
Provide all the basic income you want, there will still be those that live in poverty. Always has been, always will be. Lack of money is not the problem, it's simply a symptom. Poverty is it's own condition.
Originally posted by mrMasterJoe
reply to post by dpeacock
People who think they are being motivated by money are lying to themselves. This is just another form of greed and has nothing to do with motivation.
Today we see too many people pick their jobs because of the money that is being paid.
editby]edit on 16-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)
If people who think they are being motivated by money are lying to themselves, because greed has nothing to do with motivation, but are picking their jobs based off of the money they will make, then isn't greed motivating them to pick that job?
And if greed is motivating them to pick that job then isn't the statement greed has nothing to do with motivation false?
No matter how hard one tries to end poverty, truth is it isn't possible.
Example, if you have a jar full of jelly beans, any effort to elevate the jelly beans at the bottom will result in shifting the jelly beans in the middle down to the bottom.
It's all relative.
Example, if you have a jar full of jelly beans, any effort to elevate the jelly beans at the bottom will result in shifting the jelly beans in the middle down to the bottom.
It's all relative.
good thread, good discussion and I love the idea, do many here think that we will become over populated? or that we are all ready over populated? I
think we all ready are and it is the cause of so many of our problems, governments won't admit it because they have other plan's, more people means
more sway globally, unless of course all those people are starving, needing help and support, Its like riding a horse into a fire, hoping it will work
out, and bailing on the horse just before the fire because its to much to handle, and we the poor horse keep galloping in oblivious agony until we see
the rider coaxing us out of the fire with the same idea under a new slogan, "C'mon horse, this time we will call it "true freedom" or "common
fairness" or something, I know it looks similar to the last idea but it's not, based on the fact that I tell you so"
edit on 16-8-2012 by
Mobidinc because: spelin'
-
Originally posted by David291
ts $10 a month per person, and $1 per day by 2014
Originally posted by coop039
Honestly, did anyone (other myself and two others) visit the link and see how much they are talking about? Its not 60k a year. Its $10 a month per person, and $1 per day by 2014. This plan wont solve anything in developed countries.
$10 per month per person, $1 per day by 2014!edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)
I agree, it's not 60k but I imagine if this had more backing they would be able to offer more.
Not even close. Man this ain't no plan for me. But I imagine in some third world countries this is some serious cash.
I saw a post by someone saying 70 million per person. Now I'm on board with that real big. Sign me up. I want to be the first. Get this party started.
There's only one thing I need to know, are we gonna keep those third world guys at a buck a day?
That is exactly what the super elites of the world want you to believe. They WANT you to beg for redistribution of wealth because that is their
gameplan too.
A world gov't under the current power brokers would leave everyone poor as # and everything expensive, while they live in opulence, even moreso than now.
Global communism NO THANKS
Prediction: In the next few years, if the economy will collapse and people like the OP will get louder, demanding more slave money. The super rich will essentially say "get bent" and people will riot and destroy more MIDDLE CLASS families businesses and property.
Do you think the rich will give you their money? LOL no, the plan is to rob the middle class again, and the scum will do it, just like in germany in the early 1900s
A world gov't under the current power brokers would leave everyone poor as # and everything expensive, while they live in opulence, even moreso than now.
Global communism NO THANKS
Prediction: In the next few years, if the economy will collapse and people like the OP will get louder, demanding more slave money. The super rich will essentially say "get bent" and people will riot and destroy more MIDDLE CLASS families businesses and property.
Do you think the rich will give you their money? LOL no, the plan is to rob the middle class again, and the scum will do it, just like in germany in the early 1900s
edit on 17-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
Originally posted by LanceCorvette
Call it what you want, you're advocating communism.
A cap on income is a cap on productivity. If I am a brain surgeon [insert any vital profession here] and my income is limited to $100k/year, and I make that $100k by April, I will stop working until the next fiscal year. So nobody gets any brain surgery, anywhere, from April to January.
If you're going to tax my income, for example at 10%, so that everyone gets a minimum income (say, $30k), and my earning capacity working full time is $32k, why don't I just stay home, not work, and get the $30k instead of working and taking home $27k like a chump?
Meanwhile, that extra $2k you were expecting to steal from me is no longer in the coffers, so you'll need to raise the tax rate to make up for the shortfall, to, say, 15%.
That means that the "stay at home and do nothing" wage rises - say, to $34k. So if I make $34K and you're going to tax me 10%, I make the same amount staying at home doing nothing.
Etc.
Great idea.
I think that a brain surgeon should earn more then someone sitting at home.
So if someone doing nothing get's 32k. a surgeon should get 350k (let the economics calulate that).
But the economy must be so that the person who is doing nothing should pay more less 30k a year to pay for food, shelter, transportation and clothes. This way he / she has the basics for living but for extra's they need to contribute with work. besides with a cap on income you won't get the cap with a "normal" job. Since most multimillionairs don't have jobs. they have business / investments. (Except for actors and musicians and some other "proffesions" but they are overpaid in my opinion.) The cap should be for those who are earning a lot without work because if you think about it, those billionairs aren't working either. They have companies or people who work for them which earns them money. So thinking about that i'd think that the brainsurgeon should earn more then the billionair who is'nt doing anything.
No, I get what you're saying. It's actually Socialism, where you are advocating that "someone" set wages and income (and thus, as I noted, overall productivity).
Who is going to do that? You? Do you trust me to do it? A panel of "experts"? The "government (because they've done such a fine job so far)"?
Or, you can take a look at reality and see that Americans have the highest standard of living anywhere, at any time in history; that almost every major scientific, medical, manufacturing, etc. invention and innovation happened in the U.S. (or often, from U.S. trained folks) because the free enterprise system encourages maximum invention and productivity.
Where your system has been tried, it has a 100% failure rate or is on it's way to 100% (Russia, China, Greece, Spain ...)
reply to post by dpeacock
Yes, that's correct - greed of course is some sort of motivation. However I was not very clear about what I really meant with the lie that is involved here. Greed is not a motivation for the JOB itself. It's not a motivation for the profession such people are choosing. It's only a motivation for getting the money! And they will not be happy with (a) the money - because in the very end it does not make you happier at all and (b) the job because they have not chosen it due to feeling the need to do the job itself. And this is what I ment with "lie". Doing the wrong thing with a disturbed motivation is lying to yourself when you indeed think this makes you or anyone else happy.
We need people who do their JOB with determination and with all their heart not people who only want to get the money that's involved and then do the job without any passion. This is the wrong motivation and finally I would prefer those who choose a job because of money not to work at all (see topic) before doing a bad job for all of us.
Yes, that's correct - greed of course is some sort of motivation. However I was not very clear about what I really meant with the lie that is involved here. Greed is not a motivation for the JOB itself. It's not a motivation for the profession such people are choosing. It's only a motivation for getting the money! And they will not be happy with (a) the money - because in the very end it does not make you happier at all and (b) the job because they have not chosen it due to feeling the need to do the job itself. And this is what I ment with "lie". Doing the wrong thing with a disturbed motivation is lying to yourself when you indeed think this makes you or anyone else happy.
We need people who do their JOB with determination and with all their heart not people who only want to get the money that's involved and then do the job without any passion. This is the wrong motivation and finally I would prefer those who choose a job because of money not to work at all (see topic) before doing a bad job for all of us.
edit on 17-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)
reply to post by HamrHeed
Yes, they want a redistribution of wealth. But no, they don't want to distribute it to the poor at all. The rich want all the wealth in the world for themselves! They are only giving the rest of us as much so that we don't revolt. And they are trying to make as many people as possible to think the way they are thinking: become greedy and be an egoist! This is what they have been doing ever since and this is the reason why the gap between the rich and the poor is ever increasing. The US is holding the world record for this gap!
I cannot understand what your problem with communism is all the time? We have never seen true communism on this planet in the very recent "modern" history!! The so called "communist" states like Russia, China etc. were in fact dictatorships and had nothing to do with a good distribution of wealth at all - what communism would be about! Because your government and history books always tell you: "look, communism is bad" you blindly believe them? Look into the topic. Do some research aside all these propaganda tricks. Communism is in fact a good solution for a society if it is implemented in the right way. But it has never been done correctly. We shall learn and not fall for lies our governments want us to believe!
Communism (which is altruistic at its core) is the enemy of capitalism (which is based on pure egoism) - that's true. Therefore the cabalists have done a very good job to destroy the real meaning of communsim and give you a distorted image of that. The sad thing is that their propaganda has worked and many many people are believing them their capitalist religion. They all pray to the money and greed god now. As I said before: it is as it is with the smokers. If someone is smoking but knows it is bad and feels guilty about not being able to stop smoking. Then what would be better to make everyone a smoker and additionally sell cigarettes? Then there is this illusion that smoking is "normal" and you don't have to feel guilty anymore and will smoke like never before. It has just to with marketing it the right way. And the cabal succeeded with that a great deal regarding egoism, greed and selfishness.
We need to rethink our value systems very soon or otherwise we all will suffer epically.
---
Video tip: educate yourself about how this capitalist system came into being and that it is just another form of slavery:
Richard Wolff - Crisis and Openings: Introduction to Marxism
Yes, they want a redistribution of wealth. But no, they don't want to distribute it to the poor at all. The rich want all the wealth in the world for themselves! They are only giving the rest of us as much so that we don't revolt. And they are trying to make as many people as possible to think the way they are thinking: become greedy and be an egoist! This is what they have been doing ever since and this is the reason why the gap between the rich and the poor is ever increasing. The US is holding the world record for this gap!
I cannot understand what your problem with communism is all the time? We have never seen true communism on this planet in the very recent "modern" history!! The so called "communist" states like Russia, China etc. were in fact dictatorships and had nothing to do with a good distribution of wealth at all - what communism would be about! Because your government and history books always tell you: "look, communism is bad" you blindly believe them? Look into the topic. Do some research aside all these propaganda tricks. Communism is in fact a good solution for a society if it is implemented in the right way. But it has never been done correctly. We shall learn and not fall for lies our governments want us to believe!
Communism (which is altruistic at its core) is the enemy of capitalism (which is based on pure egoism) - that's true. Therefore the cabalists have done a very good job to destroy the real meaning of communsim and give you a distorted image of that. The sad thing is that their propaganda has worked and many many people are believing them their capitalist religion. They all pray to the money and greed god now. As I said before: it is as it is with the smokers. If someone is smoking but knows it is bad and feels guilty about not being able to stop smoking. Then what would be better to make everyone a smoker and additionally sell cigarettes? Then there is this illusion that smoking is "normal" and you don't have to feel guilty anymore and will smoke like never before. It has just to with marketing it the right way. And the cabal succeeded with that a great deal regarding egoism, greed and selfishness.
We need to rethink our value systems very soon or otherwise we all will suffer epically.
---
Video tip: educate yourself about how this capitalist system came into being and that it is just another form of slavery:
Richard Wolff - Crisis and Openings: Introduction to Marxism
edit on 17-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
[Mods please move if it doesn't belong in this category, thanks]
As a human being we live in a society. We need other people to get food, work, recreation, communication, transportation, innovation and so on.
I sincerely believe that everyone in this society has the right to live no matter where you are on the globe, how smart / less smart you are, how rich / poor you are. It's our given right to live our life!
Unfortuantly in the world we live in now, most pets have better life then a lot of people living in poverty.
There is this foundation who is reasearching the possibility to provide every human being in this world a basic income to fulfill the primary needs (food and shelter). If you wish to read about their ideas check the following site: www.globalincome.org...
Before you call me a communist or what sort of left / right type of person i will tell you the following:
We have / had all sorts of goverment types, democracy, monarch, communism, socialism and so on.
I do believe that they all have flaws.
I stand for a NEW system global wide. My thought about this is: combine all the positive points from each system to make a new system.
- Democracy: people should be able to vote not only for representatives but also on laws.
- Kapitalism: there must be difference in income so that people are motivated to compete in achieving goals while they study / work.
- Communism: there must be a MAXIMUM income so that the difference in wealth can't be like it is nowadays.
I mean it's unbelievabale that the 1% own 95% of all the money in this world (I'm not aware of the real statistics but it gives u an idea.)
It isn't my goal to rip off all the millionairs / billionairs. They have the right to own more then others based on their achievements and / or inheritance. But i think there must be a law that says for example: A person is allowed to earn as much as 5 million dollars a year. Everything on top of that needs to be taxed. So that everyone else can have a basic income like for example 60000 dollars a year (The communism way).
I know that this new type of government is a sort of NWO, but i think it is better then the NWO that the TPTB is planning to place in our world.
If we are ahead of them then we can maybe achieve a NWO without the totalitarian goals that the TPTB have.
If there was a global gov. then the "military industrial complex" can be supressed and the money that comes free out of it can be used in sience, free public transportation, free telecommunication, free internet and so on.
And we shouldn't call it New World Order but New World Acceptance.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Let's hope that with this discussion we can find sollutions / ideas to the sick & polluted world we live in today
Agreed. ESPECIALLY on the tired, old, "Capitalism vs. Communism" debate. Rather than looking at them as grand ideologies and utopian visions, we ought to just look at them as being nothing more than tools...much like an wood axe or a hammer.
A wood axe isn't inherently "good" or "bad" nor is it "dangerous" or "safe". An individual can use a wood axe to build themselves a cabin, chop firewood to keep them warm in the winter, clear a path through the forest, or even save people trapped in burning buildings. Likewise, an individual can ALSO use a wood axe to brutally slaughter and dismember an entire family. In both use cases...the wood axe remains entirely indifferent to how it's being wielded.
Here's an idea for you regarding the dreaded (gasp!) redistribution of wealth. Instead of these two competing and equally unattainable utopian ideals of total economic equality vs. total economic domination...why don't we just make an attempt to implement policy designed to promote a Normal Distribution (as in the Bell Curve) of society's wealth?
This stance would acknowledge that the realities of the fact that you will always have at least SOME poor people, as well as the "inconvenient truth" (pun most certainly intended) that a civilization needs the realistic promise of at least some tangible degree of upward mobility in order to be efficient. Thus, the idea would be that in a "perfect world" the middle two quartiles of the statistical distribution of the populace ought to hold 68.2% of society's wealth, distributed upon a Normal curvature within those two quartiles.
Granted, any attempt to absolutely force such a precise distribution for every single tax year or end of quarter would be impossible...but it's a target to shoot for. The whole damn world wouldn't end if the "middle class" had 60% or 73% of the wealth in a given year...but it will end when the middle class has only 10% of the wealth.
Given that pretty much everybody in America percieves themselves as being "middle class" whether they make $10,000 or $10 million per year...I would think this could be a pretty easy sell.
Thoughts?
It seems that somewhere that people who are not secondary educated and that serve in less important roles were no longer considered important. You
will always need garbage collectors,fast food workers, construction workers,etc.. .
Before I go any further with this, I will be the first to say that I prefer that the government stays out of the affairs of free enterprise.
Minimum wage has failed miserably to keep up with the times. The system has gone uncontested and ran with no checks and ballances. Being fair and paying people a progrssive wage would stop many of the issues happening today. However, there is no such thing as fair or unfair, and the trickle down effect that was intended is not happening as it needs to. If there are other ways than govenrment oversight, it would be wonderful, but I don't see any other way. I don't believe corporate America is going to all of the sudden change and start doing the fair and just thing-paying a progressive wage that the economy needs so badly right now.
We don't need any NWO, or great leader. We simply need to raise the minimum wage to to be in step with the cost of living and inflation. My hopes would be that they would just raise the minimum wage-as opposed to dictating to businesses what they would pay on other basis.
This would be fair to both the businesses and the workers.
Before I go any further with this, I will be the first to say that I prefer that the government stays out of the affairs of free enterprise.
Minimum wage has failed miserably to keep up with the times. The system has gone uncontested and ran with no checks and ballances. Being fair and paying people a progrssive wage would stop many of the issues happening today. However, there is no such thing as fair or unfair, and the trickle down effect that was intended is not happening as it needs to. If there are other ways than govenrment oversight, it would be wonderful, but I don't see any other way. I don't believe corporate America is going to all of the sudden change and start doing the fair and just thing-paying a progressive wage that the economy needs so badly right now.
We don't need any NWO, or great leader. We simply need to raise the minimum wage to to be in step with the cost of living and inflation. My hopes would be that they would just raise the minimum wage-as opposed to dictating to businesses what they would pay on other basis.
This would be fair to both the businesses and the workers.
Originally posted by Alxandro
No matter how hard one tries to end poverty, truth is it isn't possible.
Example, if you have a jar full of jelly beans, any effort to elevate the jelly beans at the bottom will result in shifting the jelly beans in the middle down to the bottom.
It's all relative.
No...it's not possible to end poverty...but your not thinking about the problem very accurately.
In your model the jelly beans fit inside a jar and by definition occupy a perfectly linear distribution within the column created by the jar. However, just as it's a matter of simple fact that some jelly beans must always be on the bottom...it's also a fact that not all the jelly beans remain on the bottom save for 20 or so that are levitating in mid-air above all the rest and are absolutely immune to ever running any serious risk of being on the bottom of the jelly bean pile again.
The definition of a third world country is one in which there is a very small ruling elite w/ all the money and power and pretty much everybody else is an impoverished peasant. This can happen in any type of governmental or economic system whether it's a monarchy, republic, oligarchy, democracy, theocracy or it ascribes to communism, capitalism, mercantilism, collectivism, socialism, etc.
The reality is that the immense inequality of wealth that we currently have in place is every bit as vast as it was between peasants and royalty in the middle ages.
You know what really blows me away though? It's all these people who think that they are "wealthy" because they are worth a couple million bucks. "Wealth" in America starts out at around $100 million bucks or so. If your net worth is lower than that, then it would be in your economic interests to support a significant (gasp!) redistribution of wealth.
The lesson of the Great Depression is that current-cy must flow...just like the current in a river or the flow of your blood in your veins. If your blood stops flowing and being redistributed throughout your body one of two things happens. Either you have to start amputating extremities which have begun to die off from a loss of circulation or a big ol' blood clot will get lodged in your ventricle and just stop your heart altogether.
Isn't that pretty much what we have going on right now? The middle class is dead or dying and we've been hacking off our extremities (such as the manufacturing sector) as they have died for years and years while wealth is coagulating in a density far greater than it ought to if you want to keep what's rest of the patient alive.
Why don't we just promote policy that fosters a Normal Distribution of wealth in society in which the middle two quartiles of the population hold approximately 68.2% of the wealth.
You will always have both rich and poor. The trick is to make sure that you don't have too many poor people and too few rich people...right?
Originally posted by shoshoniwolf
It seems that somewhere that people who are not secondary educated and that serve in less important roles were no longer considered important. You will always need garbage collectors,fast food workers, construction workers,etc.. .
Before I go any further with this, I will be the first to say that I prefer that the government stays out of the affairs of free enterprise.
Minimum wage has failed miserably to keep up with the times. The system has gone uncontested and ran with no checks and ballances. Being fair and paying people a progrssive wage would stop many of the issues happening today. However, there is no such thing as fair or unfair, and the trickle down effect that was intended is not happening as it needs to. If there are other ways than govenrment oversight, it would be wonderful, but I don't see any other way. I don't believe corporate America is going to all of the sudden change and start doing the fair and just thing-paying a progressive wage that the economy needs so badly right now.
We don't need any NWO, or great leader. We simply need to raise the minimum wage to to be in step with the cost of living and inflation. My hopes would be that they would just raise the minimum wage-as opposed to dictating to businesses what they would pay on other basis.
This would be fair to both the businesses and the workers.
Minimum wage hikes only work in the short-term. Sooner or later the economy just inflates to accomodate those minimum wage increases and it's as though they never went up in the first place.
How about instead of worrying about how much people make, we just seize all of the assets parked in the Cayman Islands and prosecute those individuals like the unpatriotic and treasonous tax evaders that they are?
With all that extra cash to pay down a bunch of our debts we might find the US dollar is once again worth more than the Canadian dollar...that would sure help a lot for anything that is even in part produced overseas such as...well...pretty much everything.
Maybe we could even use some of that cash and hire a bunch of public sector employees to actually do something useful for society like re-build an infrastructure so that businesses large and small alike can do things like move product and communicate in a competitive fashion for the 21st century.
Our crappy second-world bandwidth situation in this country alone is enough to scare away companies that rely on big data transmission such as tech and engineering companies. A sonnet ring is a damn pricy thing to install in your facility...but it's downright not feasible if you also have to run another 20 miles of fiber optic to connect with anything besides the copper lines Alexander Graham Bell found to be state-or-the-art.
Originally posted by dpeacock
reply to post by milominderbinder
yea but it is one hell of a trick
Agreed...but it's not nearly as hard as the politicians would have you think that it is.
Remember...they have a vested monetary and economic interest in perpetuating the problem because we do not execute government officials who accept bribes in this country. Instead...we idolize them for some reason.
Sounds like "Player Piano" By Kurt Vonnegut. I think Capitalism, once a good idea, has run it's course.
Those in Power Now, benefiting from the System, don't want anything to change, except in their favor, and they can make that happen.
The only New System, would have to come from them, which obviously, can't be good for most.
Those in Power Now, benefiting from the System, don't want anything to change, except in their favor, and they can make that happen.
The only New System, would have to come from them, which obviously, can't be good for most.
Already been tried. Failed.
It goes under the assumption that everyone is intrinsically good. They are not. It also involves "sharing the wealth" to be distriubuted. How much of yours are you willing to give up?
It goes under the assumption that everyone is intrinsically good. They are not. It also involves "sharing the wealth" to be distriubuted. How much of yours are you willing to give up?
I find this idea very interesting and it resonates with me. For awhile now I have felt that the BASIC living needs for everyone could be provided for
free. If a individual wants more than that they can then seek it on their own accord yet there would be no worry of being homeless, not be able to
feed yourself or family so you have to steal it (although there will always be theft on some level), loosing employment due to being ill, etc.
Providing the basic elements for survival allows one to move up the hierarchy of needs to open the door for more emotional and intellectual growth. Which for me is one important aspect of developing a policy like this. Yet this brings into another aspect of a change in society that is needed which is greater Emotional Intelligence (EI). This is a issue I've brought up before and I continue to feel is highly important in the progression of our species. We MUST begin to develop more methods and techniques for aiding others (especially children) in developing more emotional intelligence exhibited by increased ability to communication, debate respectfully, share, respect, and have a greater empathic responses to other living beings. This will greatly aid in a more communal viewpoint regarding society as whole leading to a greater sense of responsibility to each other.
However until the level of EI can be developed for a majority of the population in the world leading to a society where such connectivity is present we must develop a new system which accounts for our flaws and frailties while respecting individual freedom and allow the door to remain open for emotional growth. I think this system that is being discussed (the one from the OP) is a part of that yet requires some tweaking but is a very genuine and worthy idea. I looked into the website and plan to continue following this movement. We must develop a new system that rewards positive social interactions, helping others, emotional connections and such for individuals and corporations alike. For example rewarding a corporation with tax breaks for funding the building of homes for those in poverty, or funding a substance abuse/mental health facility, or providing a large sum of money to a hospital to reduce the cost for its patients for a year or whatever... Coming up with creative ways to reward empathy and aid to others.
I not only like this idea but also like the fact that many of the comments I have read support the idea, a form of the idea, OR suggest ideas that are targeted that a greater support and aid to others in general. This is inspiring to see so many already thinking of ways to improve our world... keep this good stuff rolling people!
P.S. The idea of utopia is a false idea... this universe is based on duality and therefore suffering, unhappiness, etc will always exists... If one wants to talk about the Star Trek society unhappiness, pain, joy, love, hate, all existed within that world. Don't use utopia as a reason why something won't work because that is a false argument.
Providing the basic elements for survival allows one to move up the hierarchy of needs to open the door for more emotional and intellectual growth. Which for me is one important aspect of developing a policy like this. Yet this brings into another aspect of a change in society that is needed which is greater Emotional Intelligence (EI). This is a issue I've brought up before and I continue to feel is highly important in the progression of our species. We MUST begin to develop more methods and techniques for aiding others (especially children) in developing more emotional intelligence exhibited by increased ability to communication, debate respectfully, share, respect, and have a greater empathic responses to other living beings. This will greatly aid in a more communal viewpoint regarding society as whole leading to a greater sense of responsibility to each other.
However until the level of EI can be developed for a majority of the population in the world leading to a society where such connectivity is present we must develop a new system which accounts for our flaws and frailties while respecting individual freedom and allow the door to remain open for emotional growth. I think this system that is being discussed (the one from the OP) is a part of that yet requires some tweaking but is a very genuine and worthy idea. I looked into the website and plan to continue following this movement. We must develop a new system that rewards positive social interactions, helping others, emotional connections and such for individuals and corporations alike. For example rewarding a corporation with tax breaks for funding the building of homes for those in poverty, or funding a substance abuse/mental health facility, or providing a large sum of money to a hospital to reduce the cost for its patients for a year or whatever... Coming up with creative ways to reward empathy and aid to others.
I not only like this idea but also like the fact that many of the comments I have read support the idea, a form of the idea, OR suggest ideas that are targeted that a greater support and aid to others in general. This is inspiring to see so many already thinking of ways to improve our world... keep this good stuff rolling people!
P.S. The idea of utopia is a false idea... this universe is based on duality and therefore suffering, unhappiness, etc will always exists... If one wants to talk about the Star Trek society unhappiness, pain, joy, love, hate, all existed within that world. Don't use utopia as a reason why something won't work because that is a false argument.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Fockewulf8 because: (no reason given)