You are called upon by the next President of the United States to head up a....

[Boerseun]

We have communist in our midst!

 

KAC, Buffy does have a point - how to get the rich to give up their wealth? The Russians managed it, through revolution; involving violence and death and blood and gore and general destruction.

 

But that is besides the point:

 

There are quite a few things to be said for a socialist approach as described in your post, as well - we just look upon it negatively because of the communist overtones, and the bad rep the commies have got over the last century or so.

I mean - do individual people really need billions of dollars? As silly as it may seem, I can't see people needing more than a few million through their lifetimes... maybe an upper cap (say, 10 million dollars) could be placed on personal wealth? What, if anything apart from satisfying personal greed, could a person do in his lifetime with more than that? So somebody like Bill Gates having $80 billion, is in effect hoarding sets of $10 million, denying 8,000 other people their shot at 10 million - if money's limited supply was, in fact, a reality. I know this is an oversimplification, and full of holes, but damn!

 

I we place such an upper cap, which is still very generous, on individual fortunes, there would still be an incentive to achieve wealth. $10 million is a lotta dough, and very few people in the States will ever see it, let alone own it. So the capitalist incentive system making the wheels turn, won't be tampered with. And Hollywood actors and actresses can come down to Earth some, and earn realistic figures, instead of the millions they pocket for a few weeks worth of pretending to be something else than the idiotic pampered prima donnas that they are.

 

This cap will also be advantageous to the average worker in the street: Company execs can't be paid the ridiculous amounts they are anymore, because of the cap. This will free a lot of dough in the company, making it possible to either raise wages, and not "downsize" because the CEO needs a new Ferrari. If the CEO can't manage to get by with a paltry sum like $10 million, he's not financially intelligent enough to run the company in the first place.

 

There's a lot of thing to be said against a communist approach. For instance, assuming that everybody is 'equal', with 'equal needs', will lower every system in place to the lowest common denominator. Individuals are not 'equal' in many ways, including intellectual capacity, athletic ability, etc. Money, and financial needs in general is also one of them. The variation existing amongst people should be acknowledged, and catered for.

 

But there is also a lot to say against Capitalism, but the fact that it resonates with our instincts and make-up, makes it a more 'natural' system for humans than communism. But it needs certain limitations, too. I think 'capping' personal wealth a a reasonalbe figure, such as $10 million, might be a start to utilize the best of both socialism and capitalism, seeing as the incentive to make money would still be there.

[Buffy]

...and that of course is China's "middle road" thanks to that founding father of capitalism, Deng Xiao Peng!

 

I'll only note that the key problem with the $10m cap is that it has to be universal. Back in the 60's-70's the UK had income taxes for the filthy rich that hit 70% or so, leading many British rock stars to move to the States! Our gain! The Laffer Curve--which is horridly fallacious--contains a kernel of truth in it: you try to tax "too much" and tax revenues will go down because people will find a way to avoid it.

 

Implementation issues,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

'Course there'll be issues! Nobody said it'll be easy! But together with a horridly undervalued currency, it does seem to work for the Chinese.

 

What I presented, was only one facet of it, and terribly simplified, at that. But I think there might be something for it. Shooting down communism because it's communism, might make us ignore some of its more useful aspects. We might conceive of a state using all the best of capitalism, (of which the lack of a wealth ceiling isn't one), and the best of communism (of which catering for everybody as if they have the same needs, dreams and aspirations isn't one, either).

 

But it will not be adequately described in limited posts on an internet forum, unfortunately - but there is something to be said for it, I guess...

[Buffy]

I agree. I actually like socialism! Communism though is that "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea that you need an iron fist for the "transition period" between now and Communist Nirvana. But lets not quibble about definitions...there definitely oughta be a law!

 

I especially like your math: wow, 8000 more 10millionaires! All we gotta do is pry it out of Bill's greedy little hands....

 

BTW: I read something recently that the third richest guy in the world now is...Chinese...so much for communism solving the problem...

 

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

The problem can be cut to the bone of Capitalism:

 

The Golden Rule:

 

He who has the gold, makes the rules!

 

[/some cheesy Hollywood movie quote, for which I can't remember the name]

[IDMclean]

To address the issues placed forth and to continue on the plan.

 

The issues with the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and other past communist organizations is in the majority their scheme has been a split between communism and fascism. Where a minority of the population control the majority of the population.

 

As for the people with all the wealth? Well here's the beautiful thing. They are the minority. 20% of the world owns 80% of the wealth, but as with all games, and money is a game, the system breaks when the players refuse to play.

 

That is why I have tailored this plan for implementation on the grass roots scale and move up from there. In the end, those who are in economic power, like those who are in social power, will give up what they have willingly, or they will leave the system (refuse to play the new game). Either way I would not be part of anything that required violent change. In my eyes these next two centuries are likely the end of violent history. The beginning of a new age and it starts here and now. We want to create co-operation and friendship. Not strife and war. That is counter productive in all sense of the word.

 

Now when I say capped, I don't mean money/currency cap. What I am purposing is an alternative to the currency system. My issue with the currency system is that unlike the division of labor, it is not specialized. It is far to generalized the result being a single civilian can own a fleet of vehicals, a castle and much much more. I call this the Citizen Caine Syndrome. (Hearst Castle Wiki, official)

 

So following the idea of division of labor, I thought it a good idea to address the issue of division of wealth.

 

A person should never have the ability to own such things as castles. That is the realm of resource allocation I would associate with state or federal governments, or Large Corporate Entities owning. In either case they are owned then not by one person, but by many people.

 

So far the way I have it is:

Civilian, [math]8^0[/math]

Level 1 Org, [math]8^1 [/math] Civilians

Level 2 Org, [math]8^2 [/math] Civilians

Level 3 Org, [math]8^3 [/math] Civilians

Level 4 Org, [math]8^4 [/math] Civilians

Level 5 Org, [math]8^5 [/math] Civilians

Level 6 Org, [math]8^6 [/math] Civilians

Level 7 Org, [math]8^7 [/math] Civilians

Level 8 Org, [math]8^8 [/math] Civilians

Level 9 Org, [math]8^9[/math] Civilians

Level 10 Org, [math]8^{10}[/math] Civilians

Level 11 Org, [math]8^{11}[/math] Civilians

 

Each level has the ability to purchase, own and otherwise manage greater and greater resources. Each level, by the scheme afforementioned, contains representives from each lower level. So that the Representives, that represent 1/8th of the world population, are involved in each level all the way down to their neighborhood.

 

Alright now the grass roots level. Here's the thing. America is hot for the idea of "private property". It's going to strangle us in the end. I say abolish the idea when it comes to land ownership. There are many problems with a private entity holding the deed to historical monuments and the housing market.

 

Take for instance:

Adler's solution (in discussing the Kilo vs. New London, Supreme Court case affirming local government's right to take private property from one person and give it to another) is for cities to acquire and hold property through eminent domain. He points out that public ownership is common in Europe. He cites Amsterdam, where 90 percent of the land is owned by the city, with 55 percent used to provide affordable housing. He views Amsterdam as ideal with full control over use and development because nothing can take place without the consent of the city/landlord.

Source

 

Well in america, and in the system I am purposing, everyone is the owner shareholder (exo-orgs)/stakeholder(inter-orgs) in the development of the world, our cultures, and civilization on a whole.

 

So if an orginization for some reason needs to build a research vessel with minisub and all that, a private individual would not be able to do so, by strict division. However, say our private individual is a scientist, say our scientist needs it none the less, what happens is the scientist appeals to the orginization he is part of to get wealth allocated for the project.

 

He does not own it, though he is allowed use of it. Everyone owns the boat in this case (shareholders). The people who get executive control of it are those immediately involved in it's management (stakeholders). The scientist may very well be a part of the stakeholders, or he may be from an org outside of the one he is appealing to for allocation.

 

Further of interest is where I would start this with is a home. In our neighborhoods and cities, moving up. However this system would allow for the formation of Orginizations above and beyond social interest. It would allow for the formation of what is basically corporations. Where a person can be part of (a stakeholder of) multiple orgs at the same time, while being a shareholder in all of them.

 

A lower level asset would not have the ability to make a higher level purchase, however if enough lower level assets got together and formed a higher level asset the could then make that level purchase.

 

In all cases, it is implicit and explicit that resources so allocated are done so because the people can show that they are competent and responsible in the managing of those resources. If this is not so, then the shareholders can seek to dissolve various orginizations.

 

The exacts of the system haven't been completely worked out, obviously, but the core mechanics are there.

 

I, myself, have been working on a plan that should I acquire sufficient wealth in my life time that I would purchase land (current system), and develop it into public use, then entrust it to the public system.

 

This system can be implemented in the current American system, and if enough people bought into the system, then it could spread to replace the current system entirely.

 

The point of the system is decreased corruption, and increased efficiency. The mechanism by which this is obtained is by low level buy into the system, so that everyone feels and is a owner in the system.

 

I got some of my core ideas from:

Shareholder

Stakeholder

Project Management

Game Design

Game Theory

Positive Psychology

Anarcho-syndicalism and Free Association

Libertarian Socialism

The Theory of Constraints

 

With proper Iterative Design, and Marketing this system could probably be delivered on the mass scale.

[Buffy]

First of all, let me say that I like your system. It might even be popular (although I have some doubts because I'm not sure of your techniques for motivating people yet). But the main issue is still "how do you get there from here?"

The issues with the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and other past communist organizations is in the majority their scheme has been a split between communism and fascism. Where a minority of the population control the majority of the population.

I agree with this assessment completely. Do you understand what factors led to this infusion of fascism? Do you have sociological methods of avoiding it? (at the very simplest level, how to avoid the "absolute power corrupts absolutely")...

As for the people with all the wealth? Well here's the beautiful thing. They are the minority. 20% of the world owns 80% of the wealth, but as with all games, and money is a game, the system breaks when the players refuse to play.

 

That is why I have tailored this plan for implementation on the grass roots scale and move up from there. In the end, those who are in economic power, like those who are in social power, will give up what they have willingly, or they will leave the system (refuse to play the new game).

So here's the thing: that minority at the top control the lives of those in the majority rather completely: These folks have no motivation to leave the system, and they can make life impossible for those who would work to upset the applecart that keeps them on top of the heap (excuse the mixed metaphors). The majority simply cannot afford to resist that power: they've got mouths to feed and a need to keep warm. When you're hungry, you simply cannot "refuse to play."

 

Now I do want to encourage you to work out how this more egalitarian society would work, but I just have to say that the *really* interesting (and really *hard*) part of this puzzle is figuring out how you get there from here.

 

Why do you think all those people vote for Republicans who enact laws that *only* benefit that top 20%? See Trickle-down economics....

 

A rich dude and his money are hard to part,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

The point of the system is decreased corruption, and increased efficiency. The mechanism by which this is obtained is by low level buy into the system, so that everyone feels and is a owner in the system.

Unfortunately you would have the exact opposite effect.

 

Everyone would be beholden to the committee for things that they want, thus the committee representatives become the new power base. You have not eliminated corruption, you have replaced qualified players (those who built wealth on merit of the market) with unqualified elected officials who by their nature play a game of popularity, not a game of efficiency.

 

Lets talk about a corporation with 2000 employees. The top officer in the company is making $1,000,000/year. 10 employees make $250,000 or more. 200 make $100,000 or more. 1500 employees make less than $60,000/year. Around 300 are in the $60,000 to $100,000 range. The top guy gets paid the most because his decisions impact the most people. If one of the guys in the under 60,000 range makes a bad decision they may cause a few thousand dollars in damage to sales or quality, and while this is not good for a company, it is correctable. If the top guy makes a poor decision it could put all 2000 people out of work. The pay is scaled not on the capability of each person, but on their value and responsibility to the organization.

 

What you are suggesting is that basic freedoms that we have today, such as ownership and profit and freedom to spend and invest would be taken away, because it is selfish of successful people to flaunt it in front of the unsuccessful. Or that money spent on luxury is better spent on charity.

 

Your idealistic fantasy is nothing but an evil act in the guise of "fairness". I would fight to the death before I ever let this happen. I will not be the slave of a government committee, no matter what altruism they represent.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

One cannot erase natural selection with a change in economics. The top hunter of the pack benefits by sharing it's kill by of it's own volition, and the pack will always have a hierarchy. [/metaphorically supporting TBDs point above]

[TheBigDog]

Coming back to make a second point KAC...

I would fight to the death before I ever let this happen.

Don't take this point lightly. What you are suggesting would require the slaughter, imprisonment or enslavement of those who already own the things you would be taking away. And they would not go easily. It is easy when you have nothing to fantasize about the world being handed to you.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

If I may engage in a fit of opinionated, wild speculation…

… how to get the rich to give up their wealth? The Russians managed it, through revolution; involving violence and death and blood and gore and general destruction.

You don’t get the rich to give up their wealth. You make it irrelevant by making no resource scarce. If there is not practical difference between the wealthy and the poor in terms of their access to resources – food, shelter, leisure, and novelty – there is effectively no basis for the poverty-wealth continuum.

 

How do you make this happen? Technological silver bullets. Flood the planet with so many compact water purification devices that its practically impossible for any human being to be without one. Similarly with solar powered CHON food synthesizers, automatic material fabricators, all of the worlds information and media, including programs of guided education in billions of self-contained viewing devices. Uncountable totally automated space and theater air defense weapon systems, eliminating the capacity for wealthy nations to project their will through military superiority.

 

As an advance search on “abundance scarcity” and my username, I’ve pursued this rant in various threads. One could call it my “political belief system”. Though not a widely discussed or understood position, it’s far from a fringe one.

[Buffy]

Sure, but microeconomics will tell you that reaching saturation of a commodity resulting in a completely inelastic demand curve is rare over the long-term. Whether through waste or new applications, demand for anything that's useful is monotonically increasing until a substitute occurs which simply replaces it with yet another monotonically increasing demand.

 

As I've always said, I can make anyone's new superfast processor look slow!

 

Moreover, while resources are still scarce, only the producers have the *ability* to produce these economic cornucopias, and they have *tremendous* disincentive to do so. Even if one producer does, he can be swamped or driven out of business by competitors in the market for the commodity.

 

I'll see your yield and raise demand 1000,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Though not a widely discussed or understood position, it’s far from a fringe one.

 

Here are three that always stood out to me:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/3799-moneyless-society-would-benefit-society-2.html#post58001

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/3799-moneyless-society-would-benefit-society-7.html#post80978

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/3799-moneyless-society-would-benefit-society-8.html#post82169

[IDMclean]

Mood: :weather_snowing: :hyper: :hyper: :eek: , :hyper: :)

 

BD, and InfiniteNow, I would encourage you to look critically at your broad sweeping statements.

 

I would ask that you examine them to see if they are objective, and if they are properly self-critical (not hypocritical that is) and logically rigorous.

 

I would personally categorize your objections under "Reactionary".

 

What you are suggesting is that basic freedoms that we have today' date=' such as ownership and profit and freedom to spend and invest would be taken away, because it is selfish of successful people to flaunt it in front of the unsuccessful. Or that money spent on luxury is better spent on charity.[/quote']

 

This is straw man at it's finest, BD. I would expect better of you.

 

We have freedoms and all that because we allow one another to have those freedoms, we all at some level buy into the game. We agree to the rules of the society, and if we don't then we don't last long, do we?

 

A murder, rapist, or theif can ignore the laws that we have collectively made, but in the end they will be selected out of the system by the system. They won't be allowed to play.

 

Now, Buffy, to address your bit about can't refuse to play. That is simply not true. Everyone has the capability to refuse to play The Game or any other game. As to volition? I doubt that most would have the volition without the choices being made completely clear to them. Which is what I intend to do with such a system. Make the choices completely clear to your average person.

 

that minority at the top control the lives of those in the majority rather completely

 

As I am sure you can see the problem is that the minority only controls those that allow themselves to be controlled. I can assure you that No minority entity controls my actions, besides myself. They may have influence on my desisive capabilities, making it hard for me to make one play or another, but they do not have executive control.

 

At any point I may decide to "leave the game". Whether for good or bad consequences, and there is nothing that can be said or done to stop me.

 

Co-operation can not be stolen. It must be given. This would seem to be, to me at the least the point of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. That in a democratically driven system, IE the American system, the will to power arises from the influence and manufacturing of consent.

 

Anyone who thinks they have freedom to do what they will without consequence, to use their resources as they please, in whatever way they want. Is sorely mistaken. You exist freely because it is by common contract (IE the Constitution) that you exist free.

 

It is this interdependence that we subsist on, and it is this interdependence that I am interested in building a society around.

 

It's not an elimination of personal property. Like I said, It's fine for people to own reasonable things. Personal possessions. It is not fine for a person to own sizable percentages of a given city or state.

 

Now as for the appeal to committee thing? Only for things that one needs at a higher level, and as I have said the higher levels are composed of all of the lower levels. Each representatives's intended, implicit and explicit purpose in the system is to represent the interests of those whom they represent.

 

As shareholders, outside agents may vote on and be appealed too, as well as higher levels still.

 

These levels are not islands unto themselves. They do not opperate autonomously. That is the point of it. Recognition of the fact of necessary co-operative interdependence.

 

Of course the system needs refinement, and all eventualities have not been worked out, but over the course of 10 years they could be worked out.

 

In short, simply saying it can't work isn't useful. If you have a critism of it, then address that critism, critically, and constructively. Identify what is wrong with it and purpose something that might make it right.

 

One must admit that the system has at least some practical merit.

 

Also, it's free association. One doesn't have to play this game. However if your not playing the game, you don't get any of the benefits. So take your fight and private property and get the hell off our land. :hyper:

[pgrmdave]

KAC, it seems to me that your proposal would work only if everybody in the system wanted it to work, much like communism. I would rather be poor (not starving, but poor) in a capitalist society, where I could work hard and become wealthy, then be average in a society where I could never better my station by much. However, I do agree with you that some people make too much, I think we merely disagree on the amount. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to earn millions each year, up to somewhere in the vicinity of $10 - $15 million each year. I think that beyond that, there should be 100% taxes - everything you earn past that will simply be taken by the government. No limit on how much you can accumulate. The estate tax should be raised, to eliminate the inheritance of vast, unearned wealth, possibly somewhere in the vicinity of 100% above $1 million per dependant. There should still be the ability to be rich, just not Bill Gates rich.

[Buffy]

Now, Buffy, to address your bit about can't refuse to play. That is simply not true. Everyone has the capability to refuse to play The Game or any other game.

You're missing my point! No, there are no *laws* to prevent them, its the issue of motivation which you continue to blithely dismiss as obvious.

 

As to volition? I doubt that most would have the volition without the choices being made completely clear to them. Which is what I intend to do with such a system. Make the choices completely clear to your average person.

No doubt Mr. Cheney, they will greet you as a liberator.

 

Here's the difficulty: Unless somehow you could get everyone to magically decide to support this all on the same day, choosing to support this by "refusing to play the game" involves seeing some huge benefit at the end for possibly *years* of no income and no shelter in order to support the cause. If you're going to have any hope of this idea working, you have to explain this process.

 

Similarly, the have-nots *might* be able to see the long-term benefit and ultimately support it, but among the haves, as BigDog so forcefully put it, you will have to pry it from their cold dead hands. And surprisingly large numbers of people out there consider themselves to be "upper-class" or want to be even if they are not. Since these people have resources and access to *buying votes* even if they agreed to a "fair election" on the issue (which I doubt!), its unlikely to win unless something is done *by force* to remove these levers of power.

 

You can call me a cynic, but you can't just dismiss these issues as minor implementation problems.

As I am sure you can see the problem is that the minority only controls those that allow themselves to be controlled. I can assure you that No minority entity controls my actions, besides myself. They may have influence on my desisive capabilities, making it hard for me to make one play or another, but they do not have executive control.

So if everyone just thought like you do, it would work! Cool! That's the same traps the neocons fall into. They make this jump from what they think to insisting its the *only* rational conclusion that *anyone* can justify! More investigation might indicate that the problems I'm describing are major and need to be addressed in *realistic* terms.

In short, simply saying it can't work isn't useful. If you have a critism of it, then address that critism, critically, and constructively. Identify what is wrong with it and purpose something that might make it right.

I've been happy to! If you don't believe these criticisms are valid, please let me know why you think so!

One must admit that the system has at least some practical merit.

So does "peace on earth and goodwill towards your fellow man." Mistaking criticisms of you plan as a criticism of your goal would be a false conclusion. Your plan even sounds (kinda) good (the "kinda" coming from your dismissal of the human reaction to limited motivations, yes, you're allowing for unequal pay, but what motivates those at the top? What about "accidental millionaires?" Do you confiscate their "unfair gains?" lots to think about here). The problem is really just that the *implementation* of it may be completely impractical unless you figure out how to deal with the issues associated with the transition.

Also, it's free association. One doesn't have to play this game. However if your not playing the game, you don't get any of the benefits. So take your fight and private property and get the hell off our land. :weather_snowing:

You might want to compare this to BD's tirade above! Its the shoe now on the other foot! You sure you don't know what we're talking about here?

 

Practical Cat,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Buffy, my dear, if I may call you such. I addressed the bit on critism with it intended for BD and InfiniteNow, primarily.

 

What I mean by:

As I am sure you can see the problem is that the minority only controls those that allow themselves to be controlled. I can assure you that No minority entity controls my actions, besides myself. They may have influence on my desisive capabilities, making it hard for me to make one play or another, but they do not have executive control.

My point in this is that I am normal person, despite any capabilities I may have developed over the course of my life. Therefore what applies to me, can apply to just about anyone else. I am only exceptional in a mediocre society. That isn't saying anything to me. I haven't been able to do anything exceptional, in my own view. So far my life seems pretty normal, compared to the lives of others.

 

It is from that which I base this. I know that some people are different in affect than myself, but for the most part it is simply skin deep. Most people in my experience are just that people, and subject to the same real rules as myself. So I use myself as the metric, when talking about people. I have no better metric to use.

 

Now as I have said. This system is broken down such that it can be implemented as a hybrid system. I suppose this statement has been missed in discussing the larger parts of it.

 

Where you start is with something like a company credit card. You have a community of people start it, and at the same time that community of people seeks out to teach it to the world. People would not be forced into it by violence. I wage peace, not war. People would actively have to make the choice to buy into the system. Those who did could benefit from the system, those who didn't nothing against them, but they can only benefit from being non-members.

 

Your free to associate as you pleased, just like you are free to pursue happiness, and free to suffer the consequences of your actions.

 

So back the community part. You get open minded individuals together, setup a trust fund/foundation sort of thing. Each member of the community chips in to that fund. First thing to get payed off is the various communial bills. Rent, Food, Power, Garbage, and Water. If needed the Community chest is used to allocate previously private land for public uses. That is buy land, develop it and then commit it to public ownership. Much like a Business actually.

 

Each member of the community must participate in someway. Personal betterment (education), personal or community production. The powers and responsibilities of each member would be clearly stipulated in a communial document, a constitution of sorts.

 

Outside money could be taken for services rendered, or goods produced. First things first is to get the community free standing though. For some time, yes, it might take time to establish and might take a bit of good will.

 

You run this like a business starting out. Particularly with an interest towards making it something like a cross between a realitor, and a housing agent. It would be a for profit, intially, organization.

 

This of course assuming it doesn't have a wide spread (40%+ of the population) acceptance. Once the community of people participating in the system hits it's first 7 Agency (population minimum: 2,097,152). It should become mostly self-sufficient. I would think.

 

What goes on is land is purchased privately intially and entrusted to public domain. As this goes on, and members join the system they are affored more and more of the new resource allocation based on the acquistions of the system. In the mean time contemporary money is circulated to pay for internal and external expensises.

 

All the while, the members who join are automatically shareholders in the whole of the system and stakeholders in the subsidaries of the system that they are a direct part of. You own personal property, 100%. Can take it if and when you leave. You have to have worked to earn it. However Communial property remains communial even if you deallocate from the system. IE Public land property, and production means.

 

In this system the people who get in are subject to a number of filters for the transitional period. One is that they must choose to join. Two they must be accepted by the whole of the community at that time, or at least the representives. The community that they are entering into (assuming they aren't a like-community merging into the system) has the executive power regarding whether an applicant is acceptable with in their community.

 

Like I said the exact details of the system have not been formalized, I am still working on them. I wouldn't mind making a brainstorm thread, if people are interested in iterating the system towards practical implementation. Addressing the details that is.

 

People would not exist in the system, starting or otherwise without compensation for their time. Which is the main point of contention whether on the side of Socialists or Capitalist. Why is this worth my time?

 

Now as for personal merit? Well that is the point of the representives. Pretige would be an informal aspect of the system. As a representive of a community you are liable to address the issues of the people you are directly representing. However as a leader you can help set the agenda. Moving the system forward. This system is purposefully oriented towards dynamism, not statis.

 

I would love to critically and practically infuse Technocracism (rule by the most able) into this system, so that the most qualified end up in the higher levels. However, as I have made a point of, the system is set towards a more flat hierarchy, and minimums and maximums are set. However one must consider that any given individual, no matter their capabilities can only do so much.

 

I would like it if I could see some information about the average work time per week, world wide. Each member would be expected to contribute to the whole, and would be required to participate to have resources above the necessities allocated to them. To avoid excess strain on the community chest.