A modern economy circulating products and services throughout the world doesn’t need money or sovereign countries (national currencies) to be successful. Today, we’ve the scientific knowledge and technological skills to convert our natural and artificial resources into daily life-sustaining deliverables: food, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and employment demands. What we lack is unity, a global framework built upon fair and humane laws and safe and healthy industrial practices. I hypothesize that humanity can end poverty and reduce pollution by abandoning wealth and property rights, and instead adopt and implement an advanced resource management system that can provide “universal protections for all”. Replacing customary political competition altogether, this type of approach, which I named facts-based representation, allows us a better way to govern ourselves and our communities, basing policy and decision making on the latest information, in turn improving the everyday outcomes impacting our personal and professional lives.
First, thanks for the comment. (Even though I disagree.) Some quick responses to some of your points
1) You mention a system with no money. Having money makes all the other things so much easier and removing it would significantly reduce our ability to deliver the life-sustaining deliverables you mention.
2) I don't think 8 billion people will ever be unified. To get everyone unified would literally require government officials imprisoning and murdering people.
3) You mention facts-based representation -- Given all the issues with the fact-checkers being wrong, surely you don't buy into this being viable? The Biden Administration pressured news outlets in what we now know was right to fact-check and discredit reporters on the Hunter Biden story. Having the government be the fact-checkers is stunningly scary, has already been wildly abused in our society which has multiple outlets, and would be horrifying to think about.
Finally, when comparing socialism to capitalism, societies that embrace markets and capitalism have done far more to alleviate poverty than other systems. That's what should be embraced to promote wealth and prosperity for both the rich and the poor.
Again, while I disagree with you -- appreciate the comment and the chance for dialogue.
No, thank you! And to your points, firstly, people and life and society and government would still do many of the same things that we do today in a moneyless world, for example, all able-bodied adults would work, all school-aged minors would go to school, all severely disabled would be properly treated, all old people would be retired, all people would have ample personal time, freedom, and mobility to enjoy their interests, traveling, etc.
Secondly, 8 billion are unified already under the monetary system. We all use money. We all buy stuff from sellers. We all borrow or and bank. We all pay interest rates, financial fees, and taxes. Makers can accumulate profits, employ others, and influence government. But everyone is a buyer. That’s a universal, unavoidable fact. Today’s laws and policies support money-based activities no matter which country you live. Additionally, I predict the high costs related to increasing natural disasters will force countries to work together in finding solutions, more and more.
Under facts-based representation, the latest information is used to help people and government make better decisions. So, there wouldn’t be political parties, power struggles, hierarchal structures, institutional injustices, or resource abuses anymore. The world would be divided into its five natural groups: babies and toddlers, students, workers, severely disabled, and the elderly. Among workers, there would be four main job types: leaders, resource managers, subject matter experts, and occupational specialists. Leaders would hold term limits; occupational specialists would make up the bulk of the global workforce. But everyone upon graduation of professional career training would be assigned their job title and job location, matched by their academic and personality choices along with the needs of their communities, planet-wide. Another thing to consider is science and technology is here to stay and helps humanity in direct proportion to how it is applied. Used to protect families and the environment, then in that case, new data as unblemished, depoliticized information about ourselves and our surroundings will continue to advance our knowledge and skills therefore our collective outcomes.
Lastly, markets allow investors a place to multiply their capital. Since they have the advantage, they dictate what gets made in turn limiting what we can buy. Since they have the most to lose, they spend their time and energy protecting their families, their businesses, and the politicians who support their ideological beliefs. Markets empower those services that help investors, the ones who lend money to the rest of the world for a fee. They represent the middleman. They act as barriers. They oppose regulation. They control global banks, their entire existence depends on financial economies. Where as a moneyless economy permits goods the be made, distributed, consumed, and recycled for the benefit of everyone, as a service to our children and our families and our communities and our planet. A moneyless economy allows good ideas to work (for us) and bad ideas to fail (for us). Income-based systems are an incredibly inefficient way to move resources. Many many humans must be poor for a few humans to be rich. The middleclass has to constantly fight both extremes, meanwhile, billions suffer squalid conditions, wartime losses, diseases, and high illiteracy, not to mention that throughout these class struggles, the wealthy can afford a healthy, happy lifestyle. They represent the carrot that everyone has to chase like stubborn mules, working in circles for their owners.
A modern economy circulating products and services throughout the world doesn’t need money or sovereign countries (national currencies) to be successful. Today, we’ve the scientific knowledge and technological skills to convert our natural and artificial resources into daily life-sustaining deliverables: food, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and employment demands. What we lack is unity, a global framework built upon fair and humane laws and safe and healthy industrial practices. I hypothesize that humanity can end poverty and reduce pollution by abandoning wealth and property rights, and instead adopt and implement an advanced resource management system that can provide “universal protections for all”. Replacing customary political competition altogether, this type of approach, which I named facts-based representation, allows us a better way to govern ourselves and our communities, basing policy and decision making on the latest information, in turn improving the everyday outcomes impacting our personal and professional lives.
#ScientificSocialism
First, thanks for the comment. (Even though I disagree.) Some quick responses to some of your points
1) You mention a system with no money. Having money makes all the other things so much easier and removing it would significantly reduce our ability to deliver the life-sustaining deliverables you mention.
2) I don't think 8 billion people will ever be unified. To get everyone unified would literally require government officials imprisoning and murdering people.
3) You mention facts-based representation -- Given all the issues with the fact-checkers being wrong, surely you don't buy into this being viable? The Biden Administration pressured news outlets in what we now know was right to fact-check and discredit reporters on the Hunter Biden story. Having the government be the fact-checkers is stunningly scary, has already been wildly abused in our society which has multiple outlets, and would be horrifying to think about.
Finally, when comparing socialism to capitalism, societies that embrace markets and capitalism have done far more to alleviate poverty than other systems. That's what should be embraced to promote wealth and prosperity for both the rich and the poor.
Again, while I disagree with you -- appreciate the comment and the chance for dialogue.
No, thank you! And to your points, firstly, people and life and society and government would still do many of the same things that we do today in a moneyless world, for example, all able-bodied adults would work, all school-aged minors would go to school, all severely disabled would be properly treated, all old people would be retired, all people would have ample personal time, freedom, and mobility to enjoy their interests, traveling, etc.
Secondly, 8 billion are unified already under the monetary system. We all use money. We all buy stuff from sellers. We all borrow or and bank. We all pay interest rates, financial fees, and taxes. Makers can accumulate profits, employ others, and influence government. But everyone is a buyer. That’s a universal, unavoidable fact. Today’s laws and policies support money-based activities no matter which country you live. Additionally, I predict the high costs related to increasing natural disasters will force countries to work together in finding solutions, more and more.
Under facts-based representation, the latest information is used to help people and government make better decisions. So, there wouldn’t be political parties, power struggles, hierarchal structures, institutional injustices, or resource abuses anymore. The world would be divided into its five natural groups: babies and toddlers, students, workers, severely disabled, and the elderly. Among workers, there would be four main job types: leaders, resource managers, subject matter experts, and occupational specialists. Leaders would hold term limits; occupational specialists would make up the bulk of the global workforce. But everyone upon graduation of professional career training would be assigned their job title and job location, matched by their academic and personality choices along with the needs of their communities, planet-wide. Another thing to consider is science and technology is here to stay and helps humanity in direct proportion to how it is applied. Used to protect families and the environment, then in that case, new data as unblemished, depoliticized information about ourselves and our surroundings will continue to advance our knowledge and skills therefore our collective outcomes.
Lastly, markets allow investors a place to multiply their capital. Since they have the advantage, they dictate what gets made in turn limiting what we can buy. Since they have the most to lose, they spend their time and energy protecting their families, their businesses, and the politicians who support their ideological beliefs. Markets empower those services that help investors, the ones who lend money to the rest of the world for a fee. They represent the middleman. They act as barriers. They oppose regulation. They control global banks, their entire existence depends on financial economies. Where as a moneyless economy permits goods the be made, distributed, consumed, and recycled for the benefit of everyone, as a service to our children and our families and our communities and our planet. A moneyless economy allows good ideas to work (for us) and bad ideas to fail (for us). Income-based systems are an incredibly inefficient way to move resources. Many many humans must be poor for a few humans to be rich. The middleclass has to constantly fight both extremes, meanwhile, billions suffer squalid conditions, wartime losses, diseases, and high illiteracy, not to mention that throughout these class struggles, the wealthy can afford a healthy, happy lifestyle. They represent the carrot that everyone has to chase like stubborn mules, working in circles for their owners.