Parodite wrote:Simple Minded wrote:an idea that has timeless appeal, because it seems entirely work able in theory. at least in an organization like a family or an organization of less than 5 people.
The second link I gave mentions an experiment to test the theory, with seriously more people involved than just a few.
Surprisingly, even in the free market, where buyer and seller determine a price that both find agreeable, so many are dissatisfied. recently my friend P sold a motorcycle to my friend F. they both claim they got screwed!
both are adults who have owned at least 40 motorcycles each.
I explained this to a third friend R as "that's when you know both parties are professional horse traders."
in practice, the difficulty goes far beyond any objections of the right & left.
it runs smackdab into the problem of who gets to decide the meaning of "problems", "sensible", "certain percentage", "gross income", "mean compensation"........ "need", "ability", etc.
The initial appeal this idea has to me (without having giving it much thought and reading I admit), is related to the newly arising situation where due to technological development many types of jobs disappear rapidly without enough new types of jobs emerging to replace them. Less people will be needed to keep things up and running. Now very poor people anywhere in the world will be forced and willing to do the dirty and tough jobs for very little money... but in richer/rich countries structural and systemic un(der)employment seems to become permanent. There is simply not enough work for everybody.
try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice"
I think it is much easier than you suggest or fear.
everyone gets paid a minimum wage each month with bonuses paid the next month (after profits are calculated) determined by voting on who was the most valuable group member last month?
Basic income is something entirely different from minimum wages.
me bad. rather than the federal minimum wage, here I meant the base wage that was determined by group consensus and vote.
you could vote the slackers and the greedy off the organizational (corporate or cooperative) island, but how do you vote someone off the island of NY, the US, Europe, etc.
what about the guy who holds the weapons to ensure the rule are followed correctly?
We continue to search for angelic administrators from among the poll of human applicants.....
I think you complicate things unnecessarily.
Just try equate a nation state with a family business. USA Inc. Holland Ltd. You make money by producing goods and services, you trade with other family businesses. Just good old bartering but you use currencies to exchange goods and services. Now it turns out that all those family businesses that participate in the same open market are doing extremely well lately. Technology and science have made it possible that much less time is needed to spend on work. The question is really very simple: do you decide together that all the sweets, goods and power go to those who
do have work... leaving the rest collecting crumbs from the floor and sleeping in the shed.. or do you want every family member enjoy a minimum standard of the family cake.
It seems to me that the problems you see only apply to people
who wrongly believe they are part of a certain family business. Or in other words, the "society" they assume they belong to is not a society at all.
It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence. From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America.
I agree with you 100% that on a small scale it is doable. Distance insulates. Lots of corporations, communities, charities, volunteer organizations, etc. function exactly in that manner currently. the number 5 above was an anal extraction. on the scale of a population of even a couple million, difficulty increases.
Scale will be key. One size fits all always get more difficult as the group gets bigger. Even in terms of definition of group identity. How to get individual Europeans (or Americans) to define themselves as European (or American) rather than by nation (in Europe), state (in the US), skin color, religion, occupation, preferred activity, income, NFL or AFL fan, Fred, Mohammed, Shamus, Saab driver, Harley rider, etc. Hell, lets skip to the end, we're all Earthlings! Right? Why don't we all currently define ourselves as such? The balancing of group identity and individual identity is a fascinating dynamic endeavor.
I think this statement may very well be true:
"It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence." This reminds me of book The Sovereign Individual. Is it due to any actual changes, or was the extended tribal society always a myth in the minds of those who could not easily communicate or meet with their distant tribal members? Those who claimed in the 1970s that info tech would make the world a smaller place and bring us all together once we could all communicate instantaneously.... seemed to overlook the fact that Fred could tweet "Screw you!" to several million people he would never meet face to face!
Getting upset over Fred tweeting "Screw you!" or being comforted because Nigel tweets "I love you!" is something that neither Fred nor Nigel can control.
regarding this statement:
"From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America." I don't think America ever was homogenous, at least not based on my travels and experience. Depending on one's definition of culture, it seems to change about every 50 miles or so. People in Charlottesville VA or Lynchburg, VA think themselves superior to the other. I read the complaints of other Americans who post on this forum and often think "Wow! I'm glad I don't live within 100 miles of you! The area I live in is loaded with "the community spirit and sense of co-operation" other Merikans claim doesn't exist in "America" anymore (or ever, depending upon the poster). I always wonder why they don't move. Of course, people don't react to reality, but to their perceptions of reality. Me or them could both be delusional.
Me: try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice"
Parodite: I think it is much easier than you suggest or fear.
in my experience, when the parties are in close physical proximity, where quantities and qualities can be defined, agreement is very easy to achieve on almost everything. Distance seems to contribute greatly to the concept of the "other" and the notion of "unfair." Interestingly enough, it is usually the outsiders that are the harshest judges of the participants. "Those people" over there are not behaving up to "our ideals."
In cyberspace, where imagination dominates over anything that can be defined or measured, not so much agreement exists. Perhaps because there is no reality in cyberspace to define our ideas, but only subjective and personal perception?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice, there is. Personal cost always determines perspective.