I should clarify.. I did say if I had it my way. It's far too idealistic a society though - people are, for the most part, extremely greedy. Even if they don't admit to it, the silent goal many people have is to have is to amass alot of money.
I agree, but I prefer to be idealistic in the other direction. i.e. a non-cut-throat free market.
Something I found interesting is that in an English history class I took it was mentioned that a member of the lower classes was better off in in the 17th century than the Industrial 19th do to things like Noblise Oblige as aopposed to being an expendable "plenty more where that came from" worker.
And for the second bit - that's the thing in my system. As I said.. from a time when services and good were worth something. Being in a trade would make them valuable, as well as assist the society around them.
That's still the case, goods and services are still valubale even if the paper money isn't.
In your system, would all people have equal propety? because why should someone bother earning a trade if they can be a bum and get the same amount? I realize people will do things from enjoyment/some sense of duty, but do you think enough would, especially if getting into the trade is expensive? Hospital eqipment and contractor's tools don;t grow on trees.
At very least.. I don't think things like cancer research in modern society should need to be paid for at all - simply done for the greater good.
I don't think cancer researchers are making money hand over fist. I think the cost of research has to do with the equipment used. One of my friends works at the UofA Cancer Center, I'll ask him next time what some of the more expensive equipment costs.
You see the problem is labor specialization, the researchers and people who build their equipment can't do that and farm and build a house etc. at the same time they do that so they need money to buy food and the like.
and the home builder can;t get all the materials himself, unless you are talking a very simple house.
It's a very idealistic system, and would never work for one simple reason - humans enjoy amassing things and being better than the next man
I disagree that's the one reason it won't work.
I think another reason is limited resoucres. In the free-market, resources are given to things people find valuable. I'm sure you've heard the expression "voting with your dollar"?
The tendency to amass things is how we get the resources to do things. The problem is when you go about it un ethically.
.
Socialism and Communism are great systems in theory - but in practice terrible because of human nature.
I don't liek them in thoery either. People aren;t equal(identical), they shouldn't all have the same property and responsibilty.
And every political theory works in theory.
Human nature also is all that keeps rule by enlightened philosopher-kings from working.
The intelligence comment was mostly because I'm finding more and more that we, as a western society (US, Canada, Britain etc) are not putting so much value on individual intelligence but rather simply as working sheep. And people are unfortunately content with this.
And that's a big problem with communism/socialism, it sees people as a collective and not as individuals.
Money has lost it's value - it stemmed from originally a beadmaker would trade beads for goods, a farmer would trade in food. Nations traded exclusively in what they needed.. spices, lumber etc. They created the original system of coinage/ gold as a standard of worth so that each trade would become exactly fair, things would have a set worth.
That, and it was something everyone could accept. i.e. what if I don't nead any beads? Plus, for merchants coinage saved a lot of space and weight.
Then inflation occurred - people decided that things should cost more, more money was created out of nowhere. And so it's worth was fractioned.
No, it was when they debased the currency, such as mixing in some tin or clipping corners.
What has happened over all this time is, as you said.. money is worthless now - it's become an invisible number hanging over all of our heads.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's worthless today, but that it has no worth apart from the State that made it. Gold is gold no materr what potenate's head is stamped on it, but fiat money is worthless when the State behind it falls. (well, except as a collectors item like Confederate money or something)
We work jobs for an allowance, we are slaves to our wages.
I disagree. Many people in our society are slaves, but to various credit institutions, not wages.
I thin the necessity to have a wage/income has more to do with property tax then the state of currency.
As you may see - I'm a huge idealist. I believe that if humanity puts aside it's differences and obsession with above mentioned number we can work towards a golden age where we can find truth, beauty, equality and work legitimately for it.
The problem is you can do this with any social/economic system.
I think we should go back to Feudalism. If everyone is Feudalism was just there would be no problem. The peasants and serfs would be well treated, the nobles would enact just laws and enforce them fairly, etc. and the kings and nobles would establish education and research and patronize Universites and the like. Furthermore, decentralized societies have an advantage over centralized ones like yours when dealing with invaders (they don't fall with the stroke of a sword, the death of the rulers won't end the country)
Your mention of this only working on a small island is perfect here - say a group of people were shipwrecked on an island. They would work each day for survival, and they would all need to work together to ensure that they had everything they needed, selfishness in any member would be the fall of the group.
Ah, Lifeboat Ethics. . I don;t think it;s a good idea to have your ideal society be one with a sword of Damocles hanging over it.
Besides you just vinidicated Objectivist ethics; it would be in the interest of the selfish person to cooperate to insure his survival.
really though, it's not incompatiable with Capitalism, i,e, the guy whose good at catching fish trades with guy whosw good at building shelters.
As in my ideal world - their greatest reward is that they benefited their group, and worked towards a more stable, happy mini-society.
So much for individualism.
Seriously though, In my ideal world it would be that people's greatest reward was acting ethically.
Actually, could I ask you a question back, you seem like a very intelligent person - What is America in debt to? I hear of this great 'national debt' all of the time.. but a debt to whom exactly?
Here.
And.. how can they keep paying for anything at all if they are in such an amazingly high debt
.
Because our creditors aren't stupid. Like credit card companies preying on financially iresponsible college students, they know the more we spend the more we are enslaved to them.
Doesn't the fact that the country is continually paying for things they cant actually afford proof of the non-existence or worthlessness of money?
No. It just shows they are very stupid with money. it's like many people with credit cards; as long as they can pay the interest on the debt/keep the creditors from collecting, they don't care how much money they don't have they are spending.