In our nations, we more/less have two political factions, the capitalists and the socialists, although some people say the fascists have taken over them both, but nevermind that. I dont like socialism, and I especially don’t like fascism, as I’m poor, and only a poor fool would want corporatism, big corporations being bailed out at their expense. Both socialism and corporatism reek of altruism and/or egoism (the two doctrines are not necessarily as opposed as others would have you believe), one is a horizontal altruism/egoism (socialism), the other is a vertical egoism/altruism (corporatism). At their core, both are parasitical, as the unproductive are draining wealth and resources from the productve. Capitalism is a superior politicaleconomic system, because it’s virtue is fairness justice, not self sacrifice. It is my belief that in order to live long and prosper, man must live in a society, and in order for a society to live long and prosper, thouse make a positive contribution to it should flourish,
define “positive contribution”
define “productive” and “unproductive”
explain who makes such determinations about other people and how they go about doing so.
what is the measure of a person’s productivity?
those who neither make a positive, nor a negative contribution should make a positive one, or get the fuck out, and those who make a negative contribution should pay a penalty, or perish. I believe capitalism is the best system for distributing justice, however, since the lucky sometimes prosper at the productives expense, I can think of one that is just as good, or better… meritocracy. Rather than capitalism vs socialism, I think the two primary parties in our republic should be, capitalism vs meritism. In meritism, the government would step in and decide who has been, is, or will be more productive, who has been lucky/disseetful, and take the wealth and resources from the lucky/disseetful and give it to the productive. I’m not exactly sure about the details, but I think meritism would be better than socialism or corporatism, wouldn’t you?
And where do you think the deceitful/unproductive/thieving people would all head for a position ?
No system will lead to utopia. Freeing the free market (I dislike the word ‘capitalism’, people have too many embedded false meanings in the word) will get as close as possible.
i still want to know what qualifies as “unproductive” and how that is determined . . .
A problem with meritocracy is that if we use the old barometer of merit, economic value (money) we are led right into where we are today. Money is parasitical, the idea of fluid disconnected value that supervenes upon all other values concerns is a poison to our species, a blinder, a heroin narcotic that forces itself upon all other considerations. So what we require is a new way to evaluate merit. This seems like the first question we need to answer before continuing to analyze this potential new republic model.
I nominate some possibilities: capacity for novelty in thought production - including progression of philosophic and religious thought forms; love and compassion (for the species and system - earth and society - as a whole); artistic creation; energy development (of energy that is renewable and sustainable with minimal or no waste production); scientific development (within a human frame, not for its own sake - development geared only toward human exploration and toward unlocking human potential, not destroying or curtailing or co opting it); development of better methods for producing and raising children, genetically and educationally; the elimination of wars/of the means to wars/of the systems which produce and sustain wars, make wars possible. By any of these standards we might learn to judge the worth of a human, to evaluate his or her merit and productive value.
We need to get away from idea of productivity in only an economic sense, in terms of capital formation. “Things don’t matter, people matter.” This must be allowed to revolutionize how humans create and evaluate creation. What is produced, and why? Excess for its own sake is inherently self-destructive, think cancer. Over consumption AND over production are cancers to any organic system. So: production in the sense of increase in capital formation, economic growth must be tempered by an evaluation of this growth based on the poles of too much and too little. We don’t want no growth in capital/wealth (for now, but eventually we will replace and get rid of money altogether, once infrastructure and energy development reach a certain level of sustainability and renewability). But we also shouldn’t value growth for its own sake. No growth is for its own sake, it is for the sake of that within which it is growth, that for which it has grown, and the whys and hows of this being. In competitive collaboration we see the heart of the organic itself: restrained and channeled struggle, growth. The power of struggle/competition must be harnessed, severely limited and given channels through which to actualize. The extent of our being able to consciously set up and direct this process of limitation represents the potential for a new evolution of humankind, just as the inextent of it represents our continued decline and eventual demise.
A contribution that helps sustain the life of those who help sustain the life of others. It sounds a little circular, but then such is life.
Those who do not help improve the eudaimonia of others (eudaimonia as Aristotle defined it, more/less).
There are two primary political factions in my republic, the Sophocrats and the Capitalists, there are no socialists or fascists. When the people vote for the Capitalists, it is up to individuals to determine, when the people vote for the Sophocrats, it is up to the philosopher oligarchs to determine.
I think I answered this already.
The more the Capitalist faction is in charge, the more it will be about money, the more the Philosophical faction is in charge, the more it will be about virtue.We have to balance the individual and the collective,even whilst moving toward a more collectivist society.
I would say all lifeforms matter insofar as they contribute to the general eudaimonia, whilst contributing to their own eudaimonia.
I agree with all this. The Sophocrats, as I’ve said elsewhere, will divide society into four-six classes. Since our society has, through gnostic artifice, produced and consumed too much material, hedonic and empirical goods and services, there will be major limits placed on the production and consumption of these goods and services, through sophic artifice. There will be minor limits placed on the production and consumption of spiritual, emotive and rational goods and services. Society, through gnostic and sophic artifice, builds Omnisymbiote from the ground up, beginning with gnostic artifice (knowledge, how to), matter, hedonic and empirical, and progressing to sophic artifice (wisdom, virtue), emotive and rational. The overall goal is balance, a balanced Omnisymbiote, not one who’s cells become parasitical or viral (internal excess), and not one who rapes, pillages and punders nature, the hand that feeds (external excess).
Good thread.
I liked all of your ideas until you started talking about the other half of the system with the government run meritocracy. When you leave the power in the hands of government officials to distribute “merit badges” (taxpayer money) you leave room for corruption and inefficiency. How can a government official accurately decide who has merit and who doesn’t? What if two people, one a painter, and one a singer both have merit, and the government official has to decide who has a little more merit so he can distribute his funding. What if the singer was friends with the government official and that made the official self rationalize that the singer has more merit than the painter. What if the singer had a little bit less merit than the painter… and the official still gave the merit badge to the singer. What if the singer had a lot less merit… If you put the government official on trial, would you have a case? Can you conclusively prove that the painter had more merit than the singer? Even if you get over that hurdle… can you prove that the government official actually favored his singer friend and was corrupt rather than incompetent. No you can’t… and the government official knows this. That is why he is going to do as he pleases.
What if people just started killing each other, randomly, in spite of the law?
What if capitalists swindled the poor out of their money, what if a poor child has ten times the potential and drive to help society than a rich child, but doesn’t have the opportunity, because he lives in squalor, and the rich child squanders his money on frivolties, instead of becoming a philanthropist? If the Sophocrats who organize society into 4-6 classes, puting economic emphasis on themselves and the political class (but not too much emphasis), as well as on the natural/nurtural born leaders of each class, do a poor job, then they can be voted out. That is the purpose of having a collectivist party and an individualist party, it’s just that at least in theory, I think my collectivist party is superior to the socialists and communists, because we take the money from the richest, stupidest and weakest, and give it to the poorest, smartest and strongest, rather than merely giving it to the poorest.
How did capitalists swindle the poor out of their money? Did the capitalists force them to do something? Just because the capitalist ends up with money, doesn’t mean he “swindled” it.
You say you want to take money from the stupidest and weakest… and give it to the poorest. Stupid and weak people are the ones who are more likely to be poor. So essentially what you are saying is take money from the poor, and give it to the poor. You also say you want to take money from the stupid and weak and give it to the smart and strong… smart and strong are already rich and stupid and weak are already poor. Essentially what you will find is that smart and strong don’t need charity from weak and stupid, and that all you will be doing is transferring money from the rich to the poor. = socialism
What I described above isn’t even the biggest problem. The biggest problem that arises is again with the “how”. How do you fairly decide who is smart and strong and who is weak and stupid so you can allocate resources to them.
Also, you didn’t answer my previous post. Could you take another look?
On average, the poor may be less intelligent than the rich… but you’d have to be pretty foolish to think there aren’t plenty of exceptions to that rule. Example- Paris Hilton… need I say more.
Casinos swindle the poor out of their money all the time.
Waiting for your counterargument, I’m pretty sure I know what it’s going to be.
Then there’s men like Sham Wow, his shammy and slap chop were shit, or so I’ve been told, I wouldn’t buy anything from a man who says- “you’re gonna love my nuts”, and talks with a cheap, New York, street hustler accent.
Plus he’s Jewish. 
Then there’s rich people who rent homes/jobs out to poor people. So they, or their parents made some clever moves, so what, they or their parents could be stupid, weak and unproductive now, but no one fires the owner. Charging people rent/wage slavery should be illegal.
Then there’s rich people who pay poor people next to nothing, hire illegal immigrants, or ship jobs over seas. The poor are forced to work because of their hunger.
We aren’t going to get anywhere if you don’t answer those questions. This is where labeling people “stupid”, “strong”, “weak” and “stupid” becomes problematic. And on average, strong and smart people are pretty well off… I don’t see why you are arguing this point.
You’re right. I think it’s terrible how they break into the homes of the poor, hold guns to the heads of the poor, get them out of bed, make them put on their clothes, and go forth to the casino to gamble their money.
Don’t misunderstand me, money’s money if you’re a casino, but I still think they prefer the rich. I don’t see too many penny slot players getting free cocktails, but that, “High roller,” $50 minimum BlackJack table they have going at the local casino twice a week…
The only free drink I ever got was when I hit that $1,250 mini-jackpot last month. I had all kinds of friends, everything. I went back a few days later and nobody remembered that I am supposed to drink for free, for some reason.
What about him?
ShamWow actually does hold 10X its weight in liquid. Tests have proven it. It’s true that the commercial once said 20X, but that’s beside the point. You wash it, and reuse it. You’ll never have to waste your money on paper towels again.
“But you have to call in the next twenty minutes, 'cause we can’t do this all day!”
I’ve never tried the SlapChop, but rumor has it that he executed that over-the-shoulder into the sink shot in one take.
I don’t know what your problem with the accent is. It’s an attention-getter, that’s the point of it. For Fuck’s Sake, if I hear a Fuckin’ 80’s game-show sounding voice coming at me with the same old, “But wait…there’s more,” like 90% of the fucking informercials that they put on TV it will be too soon…and I watch very little TV and even less where there would be infomercials.
What would the purpose of property ownership be? Do you realize what the builders could do with prices of new homes were it not for rent existing as an alternative?
How can you fire an owner?
Would it be better if poor people were homeless? They would be, once the builders priced them straight out of the market for new houses.
I’m in favor of a minimum annual income better indexed to the cost-of-living, and I am against industrial outsourcing. I have no problem with hiring, “Illegal,” immigrants. I think that as many jobs should be kept in U.S.A. as possible, but if people are willing to come here to work them, and will do so at a lower price, I fail to see where they should not have the freedom of movement. At least the jobs wouldn’t be moving to where they already are!
As for the singer and the painter, what class a person belonged to would depend on their abilities, their strengths and weaknesses would be determined at school. Artists and musicians would both be assigned to a subdivision of the economic class, the Aestheticists. From then on, the Aestheticists would be encouraged to mate with fellow Aestheticists. For the 1st century, members from one class could mate with members from another class, but after that, there would be little or no interclassial breeding. Extra special exceptions could occasionally be made. Depending on demand, some Aestheticists could make more than other Aestheticists. There’d be a maximum amount of money an Aestheticist could make, and a minimum amount. Since sight is objectively higher than sound, the maximum and minimum an artist could make would be higher than a musician. Their credits would be determined by how much people are purchasing their service/product, as well as predetermined by how aesthetically smart they are. Haha, I just came up with this tonight, so it may be full of holes, but overall, I’m quite taken with my system.
Yeah, I saw this one coming, they were swindled, not robbed, but this is more about utility than anything else. The carpenter who spends junior’s college money at the casino should have more money than a swindler, who is a cancer, a parasite, who only takes from society and offers nothing in return.
That’s the thing. I don’t think you should decide that the artist makes more than the singer. The market can decide more accurately than you what each is worth.
Well, it will be left to the Sophocrats and the people to decide, I think we need a balance of both, men of quality (Sophocrats) and the people (men of quantity). The men of quality are educated in matters of reason, wisdom and governance, and therefore, will be able to better determine the good for individuals and society.