This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Alternatives To How We Live.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Cambo
I often sit at my desk in my 9-5 office job, pondering the meaningless of life. I quite dislike contributing most of my waking hours to a job which doesn’t make me happy, nor pays me enough to put away for my future. I am paid nearly twice the average salary for my country, but the costs of everything are alarmingly high.
It annoys and frustrates me to no end that most of us born into this world have to go to school, get a job, slave away until we retire and then we die - but have we lived happily? Lived free? Have we lived at all?
When we work, we are all involved in an intricate economic system where the minority of people make all the money. The rest of the money is divided up to the workers whose hearts are set on purchasing items of vanity and luxury to make us feel good and be happy.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy working. But not this way. And I don’t want my focus to be on money or material items.
I’d prefer that citizens be given the option of living a freer life, or one involved in the economic system. Those of us who want to live in a simpler manner, we can have our own little plot of land which we can work. Or perhaps a communal plot, for those who want to share the burden of subsistence living. (Ownership and possession - of land in this example - could be the root problem for materialism, this will need further revision). We could trade produce and fruits of our labour for items in which we need. For example, I trade a sack of potatoes to my neighbour Tommy for two legs of lamb.
I can’t help but make it sound archaic, because it is simple. Back to bartering and trading? This idea needs further thought and development.
Necessities of life, such as healthcare, basic communications (telephone and maybe internet) and public transport would be provided free by the government. The government would ideally be slimmed down to be efficient, basic and better serve the needs of the people. No more pointless government spending for things which we are all taxed for, but never use! We won’t be taxed at 40% of our measly incomes to give a useless politician a cushy life! Society will also have greater powers over the government too!
The commercial ‘circle of life’ would operate independently from the other way of living. I haven’t given much thought of this part, because I have no desire to be part of it! But I considered that it could remain in order to give some people who want to be involved in it some sort of mental fulfilment.
Perhaps with the advancement of technology, robots and other automation will take over the majority of industry, commerce and service industries. The robots will need servicing and maintenance of course, but this will be free because the technicians will not have to earn money to pay for tools, transport, accommodation and food. This is because everything will be free.
In closing, I think materialism and money is the worst part of human society. A lot of crime is committed because of either a lack of money, or wanting more of it. If currency & money was abolished, it should make life easier don’t you think?
Comments, thoughts?
Post by
Adamsm
If currency & money was abolished, it should make life easier don’t you think?Probably not; people would still steal, still horde, and so on and so forth. Greed seems to be a major portion of the human psyche after all.
Post by
Jubilee
I would think that the last century would have shown most people that communism might work as a theory, but in reality isn't doesn't accomplish what it sets out to accomplish. If you still want to hope for such a paradise, go ahead, just realize that the world is probably not going to give it another go for many many years.
Post by
Cambo
Probably not; people would still steal, still horde, and so on and so forth. Greed seems to be a major portion of the human psyche after all.
It wouldn't immediately, but eventually hoarding and greed wouldn't be a driving force in our mental psyche. You could steal luxury items, but what's the point? People would either
a) be able to trade for it or have it for free
or
b) not place value on luxury items any more.
Communism and socialism has some benefits, but the issue remains that there are still a rich and poor peoples.
I don't really want this to be idealogical in the traditional sense, but I think if we want to live up to our supposed intelligence we should work together to form a better way of living.
Post by
Squishalot
How is slaving away at a desk, to make money to barter for goods and services, any different from slaving away in a field, to make potatoes to barter for goods and services?
Regarding communialism of land, part of the problem at the moment is that as a society, there isn't sufficient land to go around. People want more land than is available. Hence, a pricing mechanism to structure who is entitled to use which bits of land. I can't see any real means around that - whether it's cash or whether it's goods, there will still be a value placed on property, which doesn't remove any of the problems surrounding commerciality that you're trying to remove.
Post by
pezz
Necessities of life, such as healthcare, basic communications (telephone and maybe internet) and public transport would be provided free by the government. The government would ideally be slimmed down to be efficient, basic and better serve the needs of the people. No more pointless government spending for things which we are all taxed for, but never use! We won’t be taxed at 40% of our measly incomes to give a useless politician a cushy life! Society will also have greater powers over the government too!
1)What does 'free by the government' mean? Where will it get its money from?
2) Everything after this second sentence are things we should definitely be working towards, but are irrelevant to a different lifestyle.
You also have to understand, it's
very
cheap to use technology to mass produce agricultural goods. Trying to farm by hand is going to be grueling, back breaking labor (which, as Squish mentioned, begs the question of what you're getting away from in the first place) for literally maybe a couple hundred dollars a year. A lot of developed countries and the EU have expensive programs in place to try to get people to not farm arable land just so farmers can subsist on their crop. And I'm not talking about hippie commune farmers. I'm talking about people with really big expensive machinery who just happen not to be a major corporation.
And one final thought. If you think you have a relatively tough work to leisure time ratio
now
, look back at some cultural and social history from a couple hundred years ago.
Post by
Adamsm
Probably not; people would still steal, still horde, and so on and so forth. Greed seems to be a major portion of the human psyche after all.
It wouldn't immediately, but eventually hoarding and greed wouldn't be a driving force in our mental psyche. You could steal luxury items, but what's the point? People would either
a) be able to trade for it or have it for free
or
b) not place value on luxury items any more..That....I never ever see happening, since you can give two people the exact same item, down to the very last molecule, and one of them will still say 'Mine is better!' for no other reason then he needs to have the better one. And while everything may be 'free', you'd still have people who would try to amass more 'wealth'(goods, a home, animals whatever) then everyone else, just because they can.
Our current system isn't great or really all that good, but it's what we have.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
How is slaving away at a desk, to make money to barter for goods and services, any different from slaving away in a field, to make potatoes to barter for goods and services?
It is different. I would think it would be much more stimulating to produce your own than paying exorbitant amounts of money for basic foodstuffs - The price of which equates to: cost + packaging + transport + fuel + markup from seller + markup from the transporter + markup from the manufacturer = Price you pay.
I think hauling in a few wheelbarrows of carrots into my barn would be much more satisfying than getting a few thousand dollars put into my bank account every month.
Growing produce or rearing stock would be totally optional, but people like to eat so someone would have to.
Property is a valid concern, Squish. But you can still have a communal plot of land and build apartment blocks into the sky, or build cities on water or underground.
Post by
pezz
I can't argue with your visceral points about wheelbarrows and bank accounts, but I'd very surprised if in light of A) your earning power now, relative to what it would be in your ideal, and B) the per-unit value of food relative to what it would be in your ideal, food does not have a significantly lower opportunity cost for you know, with all the tacked on expenses, than it would in your ideal.
Post by
Squishalot
It is different. I would think it would be much more stimulating to produce your own than paying exorbitant amounts of money for basic foodstuffs - The price of which equates to: cost + packaging + transport + fuel + markup from seller + markup from the transporter + markup from the manufacturer = Price you pay.
I think hauling in a few wheelbarrows of carrots into my barn would be much more satisfying than getting a few thousand dollars put into my bank account every month.
You forget that you can still have a farm now and do that.
The thing that people forget generally is that money was set up to provide for the flaws in the barter system - the ability to store value over time (since goods and services don't necessarily keep being provided throughout the year), and to provide a common unit of bartering value. There is fundamentally no difference to selling a kilo of carrots for $2 and buying 10 lollies for $2, and trading a kilo of carrots for 10 lollies, except that you don't need to have the kilo of carrots and the 10 lollies available at the same time.
Re: Property - you're still going to have the same problem of how much space each person gets. It is in people's inherent nature to demand more.
Post by
Cambo
Stupid economics ><
I haven't got all the answers, but there must be solutions for these obstacles!
I am very idealistic, and I would prefer to keep this thread positive and constructive. Don't just shoot holes in my flaws, suggest alternatives!
Post by
pezz
They aren't really
problems
, per se. If you think you, and a large enough like-minded group, would truly enjoy that sort of lifestyle more, then you should definitely do it. It's a fact that your earning power will be reduced, and a fact that you'll have to do a lot of hard work, possibly for more hours per day than you do now, but none of that matters if it really makes you happy.
Post by
Squishalot
Stupid economics ><
I haven't got all the answers, but there must be solutions for these obstacles!
I am very idealistic, and I would prefer to keep this thread positive and constructive. Don't just shoot holes in my flaws, suggest alternatives!
You
still
forget that you can still have a farm now and do that.
Why not save up and buy some land in the country and live out a rural life? Tree-change, as they call it these days.
Post by
Cambo
If you think you, and a large enough like-minded group, would truly enjoy that sort of lifestyle more, then you should definitely do it. It's a fact that your earning power will be reduced, and a fact that you'll have to do a lot of hard work, possibly for more hours per day than you do now, but none of that matters if it really makes you happy.
I verily agree. The only thing stopping me from moving to a slower lifestyle is purchasing property. It would be detrimental to my ideals if I had to come up with $600,000 for a decent patch of property, and pay taxes to the government and have to live according to overly beauracratic council bylaws. It wouldn't feel right to pay taxes to go into a 'national healthcare pot' that I would never utilise, because my local doctor would supply their services free of charge.
Post by
Squishalot
It wouldn't feel right to pay taxes to go into a 'national healthcare pot' that I would never utilise, because my local doctor would supply their services free of charge.
Why would your local doctor supply their services free of charge? You'd still need to provide for them, no?
Post by
Cambo
Why would your local doctor supply their services free of charge? You'd still need to provide for them, no?
In my grand scheme of things, the pharmaceutical company wouldn't charge, because their materials and labour are free from their suppliers. The doctor would then provide the medicine and services for free because he doesn't have to pay rent, levies, taxes - for anything. He simply has no requirement for money.
The doctors means of living, such as food and accomodation would be supplied in much the same way as everyone else.
Post by
pezz
Who supplies the pharmaceutical companies with labor and how do they pay their contractors?
Post by
Jubilee
So you are paying with your cabbages and turnips, or whatever you're growing. Those are going into a big pot, and the doctor is getting his food from it.
So then the question becomes, what's the minimum number of cabbages and turnips do you have to produce to be a part of this system, and what is the incentive to go beyond that minumum.
Post by
Squishalot
In my grand scheme of things, the pharmaceutical company wouldn't charge, because their materials and labour are free from their suppliers.
Why would the materials and labour be free? Shouldn't they be bartered? Otherwise, someone in some other place is working for no reward to provide you with materials. Doesn't seem pretty fair to him, no?
I know you don't want us to be negative, but at the moment it sounds like a society where everything is free for you, at other people's expense.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.