GroDoc
Member
Right on Danimal - gimme sumadat. Capitalism like democracy, doesn't really mean much as a communication tool. Very nebulous and shifting. By itself capitalism is neither good or bad. Intent dictates morality. If money and capitalism are used as tools to exert "power over" rather than foster "power with" it is doomed to fail b/c there is only power WITH. I think some sort of demurrage currency that makes it disadvantageous to hoard might help.
Money is amoral, like guns and flowers and rocks. Intent dictates morality. If I'm target shooting and by some freak coincidence a bullet ends up in your head, did I commit an immoral act? I would say no. If I take a Petunia and shove it up your nose for the sake of harm, my intent is immoral, not the Petunia.
Perhaps if something is designed with the purpose of subjugation, it will be more likely used by those who intend to subjugate. In that sense it seems money could be better designed to not appeal to man's errors of thought.
It seems like one basic issue with money is how to provide everyone with it's benefits and still maintain some motivation to contribute. For example you could have a currency which expired at the end of every day or month or whatever, and was subsequently equally redistributed at the beginning of the next period. This would ensure equal distribution of resources that money could buy. It would discourage hoarding. Would there be those who would then do nothing for the whole, knowing their "paycheck" was coming anyway? Sure. In my experience living in small communities, people are motivated to help as a means of interacting and bonding with fellow communitarians. Those who are obviously living off the labor of others tend to be marginalized, significantly reducing their quality of life.
So I would say, along with change in the design of money, there would need to be dramatic change in the structure of society, such that we have ongoing relationships with those to whom we are directly accountable. Our society as it stands, isolates us. It's just too big and too disconnected. I like the concept of multiple small communities where everyone can actually know everyone in their community. Communities would likely interact in the form of trade etc but on a relatively local basis so that there would be accountability for any action by a community like the accountability of an individual within a community. As we wind back down off our 200 year energy binge, I suspect small local communities and economies will become more prevalent. I feel this type of life is more in tuned with our natures.
One thing to remember. When you accept a currency you accept the rules of that currency, including that the rules can be changed without your agreement. Want to work for dollars, spend dollars, participate in the dollar economy? You have given control to Uncle Sam. He gets to take those dollars back any way he pleases. Taxes, inflation etc. Only Uncle Sam is not really your uncle, just a banker disguised as your uncle. Uncle Sam is caged, drugged and drooling. Lifetimes of labor have been traded for IOU's from confidence men.
peace
Money is amoral, like guns and flowers and rocks. Intent dictates morality. If I'm target shooting and by some freak coincidence a bullet ends up in your head, did I commit an immoral act? I would say no. If I take a Petunia and shove it up your nose for the sake of harm, my intent is immoral, not the Petunia.
Perhaps if something is designed with the purpose of subjugation, it will be more likely used by those who intend to subjugate. In that sense it seems money could be better designed to not appeal to man's errors of thought.
It seems like one basic issue with money is how to provide everyone with it's benefits and still maintain some motivation to contribute. For example you could have a currency which expired at the end of every day or month or whatever, and was subsequently equally redistributed at the beginning of the next period. This would ensure equal distribution of resources that money could buy. It would discourage hoarding. Would there be those who would then do nothing for the whole, knowing their "paycheck" was coming anyway? Sure. In my experience living in small communities, people are motivated to help as a means of interacting and bonding with fellow communitarians. Those who are obviously living off the labor of others tend to be marginalized, significantly reducing their quality of life.
So I would say, along with change in the design of money, there would need to be dramatic change in the structure of society, such that we have ongoing relationships with those to whom we are directly accountable. Our society as it stands, isolates us. It's just too big and too disconnected. I like the concept of multiple small communities where everyone can actually know everyone in their community. Communities would likely interact in the form of trade etc but on a relatively local basis so that there would be accountability for any action by a community like the accountability of an individual within a community. As we wind back down off our 200 year energy binge, I suspect small local communities and economies will become more prevalent. I feel this type of life is more in tuned with our natures.
One thing to remember. When you accept a currency you accept the rules of that currency, including that the rules can be changed without your agreement. Want to work for dollars, spend dollars, participate in the dollar economy? You have given control to Uncle Sam. He gets to take those dollars back any way he pleases. Taxes, inflation etc. Only Uncle Sam is not really your uncle, just a banker disguised as your uncle. Uncle Sam is caged, drugged and drooling. Lifetimes of labor have been traded for IOU's from confidence men.
peace
