I know I'm likely the last person you want commenting on your post Dan given my cookie jar comic posted earlier but I can't help but notice you've switched the payout off on this post... Thank you dude. Honestly.
I apologize if I wrote it in such a way you felt uneasy coming in and commenting on it. My passion often is confused with rage to those unable to parse my terribly written posts and writing style.
To be honest I don't blame you for not stepping in to comment and for the time being I'll drop it but eventually I hope you find the time to forgive me for doing what I felt was necessary to protect STEEM and her users at the time.
In regards to your post here though..
Are you a firm believer in that all members of this proposed basic income society should receive an equal share of resources regardless of their input or what skills they bring to the collective?
While fundamentally the idea of everyone getting the same seems like it could work one thing that I still have yet to wrap my head around is with this system you value lets just say a "programmer" the same as a "burger flipper"... That just doesn't seem fair that the guy capable of building nearly anything is rewarded the same as the mcdonalds lackey..
It would be as if we all on STEEM decided we'd like to start all accounts at baseline again.. Everyone was equal.. But all those that had spent the time getting their reps up would end up penalized whereas those who'd not put in the time and effort wouldn't know any different.
I guess this is the problem I see with this system. However in my model I'm not including job wages as I'm not sure that is part of this model you're hypothetically building.
One of the problem is that it is not possible to give a value to a contribution. Van Gogh and Nikola Tesla made tremendous contributions to the society, they both ended their life poor and frustrated. This is why it is "fairer" to attribute the same income to all. The evaluation of what this income should be is not easy neither, like this discussion is demonstrating. As money is a tool to accomplish objectives, the most interesting part of the discussion, up to me, is how do we implement common goals inside a community.
That's interesting. I've asked the question, "Should society as a collective have distinct goals and aspirations separate from the goals and aspirations of individuals in that society?" Those in power believe the answer to this question is yes, and furthermore only a special "elite" class of people are qualified to establish those goals for the collective. Unfortunately they also believe setting rules for individuals is also necessary, and they don't care about the Non Aggression Principle.
A related question is, "in the absence of explicit societal goals (or a recognized process to establish them), would it be possible to identify societal goals from the varied and diverse activities of individuals in the collective? That is, to identify collective goals out of the emergent properties of individual actions.
If you're an anarchist and don't believe in a ruling class, but believe mankind would be better served by establishing goals for collectives, how is consensus reached on what those goals should be? What constitutes a "quorum" (i.e. what is the minimum number of people required to establish a "societal" goal? Doesn't that imply those people also "represent" the 80% members? Are there ownership issues associated with collective goals, or are these considered part of the "commons" (i.e. 20% of the members of a hypothetical anarchistic society want to establish a community park. Are members in the 80% category allowed to use the park at no cost? I say that would not be "fair" to those who made the effort to create the park. If the cost to use the park was zero or minimal for the 20% members and 80% members had to pay a per-use fee, now that seems reasonable by comparison.
One thing is very clear - if participation is ALWAYS voluntary, it eliminates a huge number of problems!
I agree with you but it is even more difficult in the case where goals are opposite. I and other environmentalists want to develop renewable energy, when the oil lobby want to continue to make profit by extracting more oil from the ground. There are polluting my air and changing my climate. The majority do not have a clue about the energy problem and health problem. How can we choose a direction ? If I have a basic income I will continue to promote renewable energy and the oil energy will continue to o extract oil. I want a state able to take decisions and go forward (especially when nobody knows in which direction is forward :) )
What you described is communism which is not what I am advocating. Everyone would receive the same for doing nothing. After that it is up to people to trade. The programmers would earn more than burger flippers.
What I am saying is we are all born naked and we all have an equal share in our inheritance of this planet. What we do with our share determines our standard of living.
Imagine diving up resources on an island. No one was a prior owner and no one had earned anything, yet the island was there for them to divide.
Thanks for explaining the difference to me and educating me otherwise.
Greatly appreciated. I'm not nearly as educated on this "isms" as you seem.
That second paragraph in the way you've worded it resonates with me immensely. Give everyone a fair start and allow them to make of it what they will. This makes sense if we'd had this ideal earlier in our societal development, but sadly the world we live in nearly all land is claimed by some governing party.
If we had an island why would dividing it up into sections be beneficial over say everyone being allowed to use all parts of the island? Would a preference for all being shared be a communist ideal or would it simply be resource sharing without stipulation of ownership and property areas?
<3 Thank for the reply man and also wording down a bit so my less than genius mind can comprehend the idea you're putting forth.
The way you laid it out just now makes far more sense than the way I'd parsed your previous posts. I'm sorry for ridiculing the idea previously out of lack of understanding. That was extremely immature of me to do so without first seeking a better bearing on the model being put in front of me.
My model does not depend on land division. It also does not depend on a global reset. Land is a concrete way of visualizing an abstract idea. Money and shares solves all the issues by making divisions absolutely perfect and absolutely abstract.
I'd actually be interested to see a diagram of your proposed model.
(as my doodles probably hint to you I'm very much a visual learner)
Does not depend on a global reset eh? Sounds to me like somebody plans to buy some land and start their own country... Which in all reality as crazy as it sounds could actually be feasible... given enough resources pooled and offered to the right current governing body in exchange for uncontested "ownership" of that territory for this new nation.
Now, I know Steemit is just a beginning of some your plans Mr.Dan and this platform is serving as a prototype vessel in order for you to float your ideas..
Please correct me if I'm reading too deeply between the lines but are you actually proposing these things with intention of making it a reality in the next 5-10 years? ~blinks~
I want to help create a world where we encourage everyone to live each moment, guided by faith, to pursue their purpose with passion.
Physical, biological, evolution seems to giving way to spiritual, technological and presumably non-biological, evolution.
We must strive for empathy, compassion, and love (unconditionally) as we continue.
Technological growth appears to be accelerating.
Exponential times call for exponential measures!
Looking Forward to working together with you all,
Fast Entrepreneur