24 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeBut, if everyone has a fair share, there's no reason why you can't keep what you produce from the bit of land you live on
Dunno about 1st come 1st served.
People can then just grab more than they need.
But, if everyone has a fair share, there's no reason why you can't keep what you produce from the bit of land you live on.
How much land does one live on?
What if Bob is a really hard worker and John is lazy. How come John can't subcontract out to Bob, sell him his land and become an itinerant (how do you spell that?) scholar? Are these serfs?
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps we'd need more police.
The gangstas take over.
You mean like gangs form one country would come over to another and use warfare like when Germany anexed Poland. Umm perhaps we need to get everyone off the want for things thing first, if only star trek was for real and the thurst for kwnollage was what speard people on.
24 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by yo its meThe problem with "getting everyone off the want for things" is that people NEED a certain minimum of things, AND people, when fed, manufacture more people, who need feeding, etc AND more people means more guys to kick your ass when they're hungry and you're not.
Perhaps we'd need more police.
You mean like gangs form one country would come over to another and use warfare like when Germany anexed Poland. Umm perhaps we need to get everyone off the want for things thing first, if only star trek was for real and the thurst for kwnollage was what speard people on.
More police and no borders simply means one "gang" wins - the one that can get power within the police. When those police become corrupt, as a powerful part of LAPD has done in the past, there's nobody on Earth capable of challenging them.
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is enough food in the world for everyone, though isn't there. Perhaps if farms in the third world had irrigation systems then things would be better.
The problem with "getting everyone off the want for things" is that people NEED a certain minimum of things, AND people, when fed, manufacture more people, who need feeding, etc AND more people means more guys to kick your ass when they're hungry and you're not.
More police and no borders simply means one "gang" wins - the one that can get power wi ...[text shortened]... l part of LAPD has done in the past, there's nobody on Earth capable of challenging them.
Okay what if we got rid of money altogeather. If people worked the land for their food maybe they'd be too busy to bribe people.
24 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by yo its meThere is enough food in the world for everyone, though isn't there.
There is enough food in the world for everyone, though isn't there. Perhaps if farms in the third world had irrigation systems then things would be better.
Okay what if we got rid of money altogeather. If people worked the land for their food maybe they'd be too busy to bribe people.
I don't know. Maybe if they stopped breeding, or at least kept it to a replacement level, but that's not an easy thing to accomplish.
If people worked the land for their food maybe they'd be too busy to bribe people.
You're describing serfs...that would wipe out huge industries. Where would people get shoes? Education?
I suppose if we only had one good - food - and nobody was allowed to trade it, we wouldn't need money, but then what do you do with your surplus when someone else is starving? Have the unchallengable police take it at gunpoint and distribute it as they see fit?
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell we'd need all that too but perhaps everyone could like in hamlets or comunes where growing the food is a joint effort and not something that takes all their time.
[b]There is enough food in the world for everyone, though isn't there.
I don't know. Maybe if they stopped breeding, or at least kept it to a replacement level, but that's not an easy thing to accomplish.
If people worked the land for their food maybe they'd be too busy to bribe people.
You're describing serfs...that would wipe out huge industries. Where would people get shoes? Education?[/b]
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd, do you "live on" less land when your neighbor has ten kids and you have to split the land among twelve instead of two people? Does his family get 11/12 of the land?
[b]But, if everyone has a fair share, there's no reason why you can't keep what you produce from the bit of land you live on
How much land does one live on?
What if Bob is a really hard worker and John is lazy. How come John can't subcontract out to Bob, sell him his land and become an itinerant (how do you spell that?) scholar? Are these serfs?[/b]
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by yo its meThen it would take all the time of the responsible hard workers and none of the time of the lazy smooth talkers.
Well we'd need all that too but perhaps everyone could like in hamlets or comunes where growing the food is a joint effort and not something that takes all their time.
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWere the police dirstbuting food? That wouldn't be a feature on my plannet! There wouldn't need to be someone distrubuting food becasue it would already be organised, if the farm lost it's crop there would be something organised already (I don't know what).
What do you suggest be done to prevent men like Aideed from getting power in the police and then denying food to the hungry with a machinegun?
The job of the police should just be defending the inocent and decovering who done it. If one of them stepped out of that role then, just as anyone will not toe the line, steps out side it, he'd be fired! (from his job, not in his head)
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou didn't understand what I was meaning, I must not have made it clear enough. If an individual is living on a pice of land, they should be able to profit from the resources that are on that pice of land, therefore they own it. Now if they are renting that land, the owner of the land is the one who should posess the profit of the resources, that is if the system of living is like here in the U.S. If the system of living is like the way the American Indians had it, the land is not owned but the resources are used by whoever needs it and they only take what they need. No one profits except for those who do the work for themselves. This is not communism. Communism is where the government owns everything and everyone who is able works to provide for everyone. This leads to problems. Try and look up the colony of Plymouth , Massachusetts that was started by the Pilgrims. They experimented with communism and found out that it breeds much confusion and discontent.
[b]Well, the land should be owned by the people living on it same as the resources.
I didn't know you were a communist.[/b]
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell that's where comunity spirit comes in init, they'd have to sort that out between themselves. They could make him do more of something else, or kick him form the comunine or give him less to eat.
Then it would take all the time of the responsible hard workers and none of the time of the lazy smooth talkers.
24 Aug 08
4 edits
Originally posted by yo its meI don't think you realize how hard people will work to avoid work.
Well that's where comunity spirit comes in init, they'd have to sort that out between themselves. They could make him do more of something else, or kick him form the comunine or give him less to eat.
If they kicked him from the commune, in the end, isn't that simply taking his land?
If they didn't feed him, then there's not enough food for everyone, is there? Now people are going to start starving again, and with the communistic culture, the guy will probably just organize an armed rebellion to redistribute the wealth "to the People". Would you have The Man Keep Him Down?
Communism is a system to deny the hard workers any profit from their work in a misguided attempt to solve problems that cannot be solved. Cynical and honorless men and women who are smart enough can easily use the situation for their own profit.
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by yo its meif the farm lost it's crop there would be something organised already (I don't know what).
Were the police dirstbuting food? That wouldn't be a feature on my plannet! There wouldn't need to be someone distrubuting food becasue it would already be organised, if the farm lost it's crop there would be something organised already (I don't know what).
The job of the police should just be defending the inocent and decovering who done it. If one of ...[text shortened]... ne will not toe the line, steps out side it, he'd be fired! (from his job, not in his head)
Just like my sister. You're only interesting in discussing the possible benefits, not what it takes to make it happen and the consequences thereof.
24 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're a bit like my brother too, he sees a problem with every peaceful, possitive, optomistic idea I have.
[b] if the farm lost it's crop there would be something organised already (I don't know what).
Just like my sister. You're only interesting in discussing the possible benefits, not what it takes to make it happen and the consequences thereof.[/b]