People need atoms to live, therefore will they have to pay for their atoms and particles in the future?
They [people] will pay to have them transported, and as now will pay to feed them energy.
The issue can be avoided by replacing the state with something more dynamic [and beyond taxation]. something like mutually supporting businesses and banks as interlacing wealth pools, which support society, and have social philosophy of re-employment when markets and other third parties make people loose their jobs.
Do we not already pay for our existence… in many forms?
That’s why I asked. If land and food are to be paid for, and healthcare and utilities, all things the human body needs, why shouldn’t atoms be paid for too?
We already pay to support our atoms… which are us, so paying for our atoms would be a double levy and just asking for a world-wide riot, and remember… you can’t trust atoms because they make up everything.
You will have to pay not only for your atoms but also for each of your elementary (fundamental) particles.
You may guess which one the most expensive one will be.
Do you feel guilty about being a one with particles?
Do you know the story of Plotin (Plotinos, Plotinus [205-270]) who was so much spiritualized, that he was ashamed of having a body?
The air will be polluted, so they will need to clean it, therefore you will have to pay for breatheable air as well.
But by then all the government buildings will be nuked, so there will be noone to enforce it.
Lost jobs are caused more by socialism than by markets. An example: Who was and is most responsible for the very high wages (also known as very high personnel costs): the markets or the socialism (unions, trade unions, labor unions, states, municipalities, churches, …)?
When the human history began, the first cities and states were built, thus about 6000 years ago, the real market (free market) ended and the ideal market (social market), thus the very first form of socialism, began.
If it is said that the market requires more this and more that, then it is mostly the social state, thus socialism, that needs more money in order to socialize the market, which means to control people. This is because of the sinister partnership of market and socialism (mediated by laws and money), which always means that the strong market becomes weak and the weak socialism becomes strong.
Lost jobs are also caused by markets, of course, but, as if this was not problematic enough, socialism set one above on it by making that problem a huge problem.
High wages? You’ve got to be kidding me. You probably think Scrooge was doing good by not letting him have Christmas vacation.
I meant relatively high wages. Compare (for example) wages of the “1st world” with wages of the “2nd and 3rd world”. Wages of the “1st world” have become high in a relatively short time, whereas wages of the “2nd and 3rd world” have not become high. The “partnership” of market and socialism causes relatively high wages, and they are caused more by the “partner” socialism than by the “partner” market. That is my thesis. The precondition is this “partnership”.
Note: I am not saying that wages are too high from (for example) a worker’s point of view .
I’m interested to know why you would ask this question and what might possibly be entailed in any given response. Why just ask this question?
The wages of 3rd world countries are too low because of Capitalism.
if you keep asking x amount of questions like these, a percentage of them have meaning or lead to meaning for some people. if we don’t then we would exist in a world with less alternative perspectives…?
And the wages of the 2nd world were/are too low because of communism - compared with the wages in capitalistic societies. The communistic wages were/are not competitive resp. competitively viable.
It depends on whether both capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism) work together or not. If a society has merely one of the both, then the wages are low, unless its living costs are cheaper than its wages. So the fact that wages are relatively high or relatively low depends on two comparisons: (1.) the comparison with the living costs of the same society, (2.) the comparison with wages of other societies. If your society has a high inflation (like many Western societies currently have - because of the [Neo-]Keynesianistic system / Debtism / Globalism), then its living costs are high, and it is most likely in that case that its wages are low compared with its living costs, but it can nevertheless be the case that its wages are high compared with the wages of other societies.
You are living under a socialist dictatorship. You are already “paying for your atoms” … and any more you wish to gain or replace (merely rented anyway).