The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > A theory to explain human societies

A theory to explain human societies

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Dear producer,

17 hours is the average amount an individual in a hunter-gatherer society has to work. We don’t live in such a society so it doesn’t apply to us.

Takers may get much more than makers. A baby may produce a lot later in the life, but in the first few years a baby does nothing but take. I retired years ago and am now 87. I am taking much more than I am making. However, during my life I have produced a lot.

Should we decide for others what is valuable and what is not? As far as I concerned there is absolutely no need for the Australian government to finance athletic training for elite athletes or compete in the Olympics or other games. However, others feel differently. My taxes go for something I consider absolutely pointless. However, my taxes also go for the libraries and the police department. I appreciate both facilities. Some people pay for the library and never use it.

‘From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.’ is the socialist motto. It’s not a bad one. Producing is something one can take a joy in. I used to be a design engineer. When I designed something that worked well I felt very good. Unfortunately lot of work is just drudgery. Life isn’t fair. Those whose work is drudgery generally don’t get well paid. Those whose work is a joy may get big bucks. It would be fairer if those whose work is a burden would get big bucks and those whose work is a joy would get subsistence pay.

I wrote a piece of fiction which was published. When I saw a copy of it I found that the publisher had the support of the Australian Council of the Arts and the Victorian Council of the Arts. Taxpayers who probably got nothing for it paid me for my writing and gave me an ego trip. Life is unfair.
Posted by david f, Friday, 21 June 2013 11:47:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic & david f – You are both missing the point.

It is nothing to do with systems, welfare, recreation, taxation and so many other things. All this stuff clouds, confuses and distracts.

It is all about degree and proportionality and it relates only to sustainable productivity.

There are so many out there that do not receive their fair share and there a many that receive a disproportionate share.

Put simply, all I am proposing is a system that recognizes this and controls degree and proportionality but at the same time not ignoring the fact that we are all different with a diverse range of wants and needs.
Posted by Producer, Saturday, 22 June 2013 7:02:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear producer,

You wrote: "It is all about degree and proportionality and it relates only to sustainable productivity.

There are so many out there that do not receive their fair share and there a many that receive a disproportionate share.

Put simply, all I am proposing is a system that recognizes this and controls degree and proportionality but at the same time not ignoring the fact that we are all different with a diverse range of wants and needs."

It sounds as though you're proposing a fair system. I don't think you can get it.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 22 June 2013 7:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear producer,

I did answer you. I don't think you can get a fair system. If you try to organise everything it will result in tyranny. That is why I think piecemeal social engineering is the way to go rather than try to change the entire system as Marx recommended. Attack problems and fix them as best you can rather than trying to create a complete new system. When you do that people will look for stability and bring back features of the old system. That happened in the Soviet Union. Lenin was simply the new czar.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 22 June 2013 7:37:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f – It may be an exercise of pissing into the wind, but without a target there is nothing to shoot at.

There is so much chatter out there and every one grinding their own axe. I think there is a need for a simple universal concept focused on one thing.

To address issues in a piecemeal manner is another way of dividing to conquer. It’s been attempted since time began and has not worked yet.

I am not proposing that any system be changed, merely introducing degree and proportionality and it relates only to sustainable productivity.

If this was achieved I am sure changes for the better, in many different forms would follow.
Posted by Producer, Saturday, 22 June 2013 8:04:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Producer, despite your insistence on a simplistic set of assumptions, what you want is a very complex problem to solve. It has elements of behavioural, cognitive and social psychology and also economics.

The problem, more than anything else is that humans hoard. We just do, in every culture, every environment. I don't see how that instinctual drive can be reconciled with what you suggest other than by limiting individual freedom to accumulate "stuff", which would make the whole thing unworkable in that mode

We didn't make it through half a dozen ice ages for no good reason.

What you're saying is essentially the same as my Dad's favourite platitude whenever he told me I couldn't have something I felt should have: "moderation in all things". I don't disagree, but I just can't see how you can base a society on it without force.

If things start out even they won't end that way afte a fairly short period. some people are naturally profligate, some frugal, some have little regard for personal possessions, some a great deal. The idea is to try to make it possible for them all to have as much as their own nature requires without having to do bad things to others to get it. That needs a complex model, especially if compulsion is minimised.

David, I think you're quite wrong about the piecemeal approach. It is a dog constantly chasing its tail. Marx and the rest of the utopian visionaries all the way to Jim Jones or David Koresh have substituted rigid policing of people's behaviours and a limited set of second-order control measures designed to limit deterministic effects and hence non-linearity, for an understanding of motivational drives and an integrated approach to working with them.

What we have available to us today with iterative computational methods is what I suspect will enable such an integrated approach to be implemented with a complex set of behavioural, cognitive and structural variables that can be readily managed with due recognition of the deterministic nature of individual responses and the non-linearity that implies.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 22 June 2013 12:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy