Back to Ted

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

No, but you should not be allowed to accumulate more than what you can consume when your community is starving

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

What should happen is that the people who haven’t sowed the crops could do some work in order to earn access to the crops. Then we could create some kind of system whereby people get rewarded for the work they provide with an abstract token. We could call this money and people could exchange it for goods and services.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Or those that are able to farm can do that and provide the food for those that can cook and provide that for those that can build who can provide that for those who can sew etc etc and all that can be shared with those who can’t do anything because at the end of the day a person’s worth should not be determined by what they can provide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave peopl to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

If you can’t provide anything at all please tell me what the value of their life is? They better provide some dam good conversations. Cuz if the people are starving? I’m not wasting food on people that can’t contribute anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You can still have money and markets. The fundamental problem is the ownership of land and businesses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But you can throw people out of your community? Then some communities will be a lot better off than others

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, but as long as the “better” community doesn’t interfere and doesn’t try to take advantage of the less good communities I don’t see a problem. And of course doesn’t steal them their area and resources. Or does’t try to expand in ways that they accumulate more goods and resources than they need and can consume

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Hmm, who decides when they have too much area, and stops them from not following rules?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 287K

    Comments