Just the other day I was getting a cup of coffee at work and I noticed something. The coffee maker we have in our office is quite old. It's probably dirty inside as nobody takes the effort to clean it. The pots are always empty as most people feel they are too busy to make a new pot. The cups are always running out, the stir sticks are running out, and the entire area is usually a mess. We have also recently switched to ground coffee, instead of beans, because not enough people were contributing their $0.10 into the fund. This is probably a common scene in offices around the country. This is Socialism. As a group of people we all agreed to contribute and keep the coffee flowing. This is supposed to make the system more efficient, as there are no profits. The problem is that people are selfish and lazy. Nobody takes care of the system because nobody owns it, so nobody really cares.
In our cafeteria, there is a coffee stand run by a local food service company. Yes, I have to pay more than $0.10 for a cup of coffee. Yes, part of what I pay is profit. Yes, part of this profit is going to improve the lifestyle of a millionaire. But, the coffee tastes better, I never have to make it, I don't have to keep the area clean, I have a variety of coffee choices, and generally a more pleasant experience. Also, jobs were actually created by opening the coffee stand. But the most beautiful part of all, it is voluntary. Nobody forces me to buy a more expensive cup of coffee. I choose to do so if I perceive a worthwhile value. This is why after I pay for my coffee, and the transaction is complete, we have the double "thank you". I thank her for the coffee and she thanks me for the money. It is voluntary, it makes lives better, and it improves the nation. This is Capitalism. We don't centrally agree on how to provide coffee to the office. Rather, one person takes the intiative and risk and begins providing coffee to us. If we like what he does, he will prosper and us with him.
Now, some people feel this model doesn't work for important social needs like Health Care, but I disagree. Only a few months ago, I was arguing for National health care. I've known close friends who were screwed over by insurance companies and still suffer the economic consequences. It is not fair. But I now feel strongly that government will not provide the answers. Just as with the coffee, a government-run, Socialist health care program will stifle innovation and competition. Prices will continue to increase, people will continue to be denied the health care they need, and on top of it all taxes will skyrocket.
It is rather easy to be sold on National health care. It is so tempting. But please, do not fall for the deception. Improvements in health care will be short term at best.
What the system really needs is less government involvement. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008, the only candidate serious about reducing our government's role in our lives.
15 comments:
so ron paul is great, but what about individual rights? will state rights lead to a regression in individual liberties like abortion, homosexuality, evolution teaching in schools, etc...? the national gov had to fight to end slavery because it accepted that it was morally unjust to let this continue; will those in "conservative" states lose their freedoms to oppression that many have fought so hard to keep? also, in terms of healthcare, i would much rather prefer to not pay anything when i need medicine, especially if i am sick quite often than to pay for it whenever i need it. i understand that this may cause higher taxes, but it seems that a lot of other countries are doing fine with this kind of system, why not adopt it? health care is too important to be neglected like your coffee area, and if we consider healthcare to be a crucial point like defense, as many would assume, wouldnt it be acceptable? finally, a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to reality and its affect on them. do you really want these people to have the power to influence other ignoramuses? i like ron paul a lot and he seems like he has solutions to a lot of problems, but his philosophies on how things should be done could create even worse problems it seems.
also, im not sure the abolishment or limitation of government would help those people who are victims of institutionalized prejudice in general, and may promote competition and taking advantage of the lack of labor rights until those people are disenfranchised completely. your thoughts?
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, following the Constitution at the Federal level would allow for regression of rights at the State level. However, more importantly, it eliminates the possibility of infringing rights at the Federal level (e.g. ban on gay marriage). This has two important effects: it is easier for citizens to effect change at the State level when needed; and it is possible for citizens to move to another State if necessary. As some States allow new social freedoms, others will eventually follow. This takes patience, perhaps generations, but it is a much better process than using the Federal government to force its will upon the States because it creates much less resentment.
My point on healthcare is this: if you ask the Federal government to run the system, it will end up just like my office coffee pot. Many other countries do have Socialized healthcare, but their systems are often worse than ours depending on your individual needs. And that is the core argument here, each person is different. You know best how to pay for your own healthcare. Some may choose an umbrella plan that covers everything, some may choose to pay as they need to. But, the Federal program will not give you these options. Anytime the Federal government does something, whether providing healthcare or paving roads, they are assigning themselves a monopoly on that market need. It is naive to believe that somebody isn't benefiting from that monopoly, at the expense of the taxpayers.
I would also add that our current healthcare system is picking up the tab for the majority of the world's medical research. If we adopt a Socialized program similar to Europe, the incentive for this research fades away and medical progress would slow.
Finally, I agree there are ignorant people in the world, just as others would consider me ignorant. As individuals, they have little impact on my life unless the government subsidizes them and taxes me for it. The greater danger is if we continue on our path towards Socialism and larger government, and the ignorant start to infiltrate the government. Imagine that future, we may even start unjustified wars...
I'm curious as to what problems you think Ron Paul would make worse?
what problems could he make worse? well, with no irs and income taxes to speak of, there is not too much redistribution of wealth it seems to me. yes we could reassess our foreign policy, and trade with others instead of establishing a global empire, but it seems like a band aid on a hemmorage. the way we look to be going, the rich will continue to become even more wealthy, and with no taxes to provide for necessary aid to those who need it most, the poor will be reinforced in their poverty.
this is my solution:
eliminate the concept of money. money in itself seems unconstitutional. the fact that i have to pay for food is a joke and should not continue. it creates poverty and classism simply because there is a certain amount of money. in a competitive world, people equate value to money, because with money you can buy food, clothes, material possessions. if i have no money, i have no access to any of these necessities. money prevents me from sustaining my life, liberty (as i am not free to do what i want to do as i am prevented by money, or lack thereof), and property. in my opinion, demand for a product creates the inherent need for it to be supplied (obviously).
*By the way, all drugs should be legal simply becasue there is demand. how does america get away with the plant tobacco as a huge cash crop but prevents marijuana from being legal, which has been shown that thc kills aging cells linked to cancer (stanford study), as well as say to other places like south america, africa, and middle east that their plants are illegal and should not continue (cocaine, khat, opium...) war on drugs wastes billions. crime exists where laws exist. 40% of people in jail are in there for marijuana crmes, and thats only increasing
anyway, it is not money that we should value, but labor. labor produces goods. if we keep all of the jobs that supply our society with food, clothing, material possesions and any demand we can come up with, nobody loses. jobs are created through the supply of demand. everybody works no longer to get more money for themselves at the expense of someone else, but to sustain this free society, where food is free, clothes are free, possesions are free. people with too much money dont know what to do with it and spend it on milion dollar homes and 12 cars. materialism would be discontinued simply because people are no longer hording their money to buy worthless commodities. if everything is available all the time, people take only what they want, which would exceed needs, but make for more comfortable living
simply through working to produce and supply every demand, we are all able to get what we want when we want it. this is not "communism" as it is known today as, because the government controls nothing and nothing is rationed. this is more of an anarcho syndacalism type thing i guess.
all of the worlds problems are caused by money, poverty, war, cut throat competition and it is destroying the planet. we need to work to sustain our lives and our planets becasue the mentality that accompanies capitalism is destroying our environment, poisoning drinking water, oppressing smaller countries, and perpetuating a cycle of greed. what if we could have everything we want, simply because we work not as individuals against each other, but rather as a species for and with each other
this might sound juvenile to some at a basic level but i challenge you to let me know how this shift in social systems would crumble or prevent human advancement
p.s. im drunk so this makes sense to me. im not an economist, but i think all economics are bullshit, because it is "the law" of money exchange, when it needs to change to a societal wellbeing. no one loses in this idea. rich still keep their lifestyles, but now the poor are provided with the opportunity to pursue freedom as well. labor would be kept track of through contracts, and people would work to sustain this system.
the only problem would be if a resource would be scarce, but with advancement of technology, we can do this in todays day and age.
i dont think the end of that made sense. what i meant is that companies fuck with the supply to ensure demand. thats how they make money. if you produce at a rate to fulfill every demand, and then a surplus to trade to other countries (who after time see this system working and switch to it), everyone gets what they need and more.
CAPITALISM IS THE STANDARD FOR NO REASON BUT THAT IT KEEPS THOSE IN POWER POWERFUL. capitalism emerged after feudalism when the split in the catholic church occured. the king privatized all the land and ousted the serfs from their land. these people were "freed," or disowned, whatever you want to call it. all they had was their labor but the land they needed for food and life was taken away from them. if i live in a society that prohibits me from owning my own land to farm on, or makes it impossible to hunt for food, then the government better damn well provide food for me.
government is a servant to provide people with a better life. it is not there so that people have to bend to the laws of the government.
the massive oppression in our country that is reproduced across the world is unnacceptable, but the constitution of our country is amazing in that it protects us from harm. "Right to life liberty and pursuit of property" freedom of speech, amendment 10, and also gives me the right to own a firearm to protect myself. the government has a military, but the people have just as many guns. this sounds ridiculous, but revolutionary thought and action is no longer a history lesson or a idealistic notion. it needs to happen now, in our minds if possible, on the streets if necessary.
like i said im drunk. LIBERTY FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, I appreciate your comments. You are obviously open-minded.
If you want to boil it all down to pure philosophy, as you've done, then I see two ways of looking at it all. Under one view, we all as a global society live and die together. Under another view, we all as a global society compete for survival.
My reaction to the first option is that it certainly sounds nicer, but it would make us the only species on the planet to adopt that principle. I think it would leave us, as a species, vulnerable to non-human forces in the world. I also find it to be impossible to achieve, but that of course is not a valid argument against its merit.
Capitalism is the very form of socioeconomic structure that supports "survival of the fittest" if you will. You correctly state that our system values money, but money is supposed to be a direct representation of labor. The more work you do, the more money you earn. Unfortunately in today's America, the elitists have found many ways to cheat the American people out of their money. This must be corrected. But don't confuse the international bankers for Capitalists, they are not. They are simply criminals.
I agree with your sentiments about taxes being used to help the poor. It sounds reasonable. But in reality it is nothing more than forced charity. I would rather keep my money and then help those I choose to help. The government is so corrupt that people aren't being helped anyway.
I disagree with your notion that government's purpose is to help us all achieve a better life. That is our own responsibility. Only I know what I want out of life, and I alone am responsible for achieving it. Governments are created simply to maintain a common rule of law.
i think its untrue to say that we are the only species on the planet that lives and dies together. in fact, we are the only one that doesnt. we are, in fact, the only species that kills members of that species. wolves dont kill wolves, they may fight to establish dominance in a pack, but they work together to bring down a elk or something. my problem with money is that it is completely not reflective of labor. if will smith gets 30 million for a shitty movie, and a teacher makes 30 thousand for a year of teaching, do we really accept that wills talent is more valuable than a teachers? of course not. if anything, a teacher should be making way more than will smith, right? well, no. because will smith sends his children to school, and teachers go see will smith movies, each persons labor is an equivalent of one-to-one. we get money for our labor. we use that money to sustain our lives. this is obvious. what is not so obvious is that every person relys on everyone else. teachers need entertainers who need doctors who need waiters who need farmers etc...in this idea, we can realize that everyone needs other people. the reason why we say a doctor shoud get 200,000 whereas a mcdonalds burger flipper gets 20000 is that doctors are more valuable. why? because they are "skilled labor". why? because they invested time and energy and MONEY on education. if we live in a free society, where everyone has equal opportunity for education, doctors stop becomeing those who can afford education and everyone has the opportunity to do what they want.
the redistribution of taxes says that the rich will get taxed, and those taxes will go to provide education, healthcare, social security, etc... for the poor. this essentially makes the poor dependent on the rich. if the rich get rid of taxes in general, there is no redistribution and the poor are, for lack of a better word, fucked.
if we abolish money, the poor are not stopped from eating, housing, education, etc. free education provides equal opportunity for anyone to have any job they want.
if we say that as long as you are working to supply a demand for "society", then we can say that "society" can and should supply your demand.
this is the only way we can save our planet. we are out of drinking water in 50 years. or, global warming might just flood everything. thats only if nucleur war doesnt break out and destroy the planet in a retaliation against a system that supports money which reinforces poverty. the abolition of money is indeed a radical idea, but so was the american revolution, abolition of slavery, civil rights movements, etc. turn on the news, every problem is because of money. we have the resources (labor) to fix it. otherwise we will destroy our planet, civilization, and indeed the entire human kind, regressing into a kind of barbaristic dark ages until we can figure it out.
THE ANSWER IS THE ABOLITION OF MONEY
this is what people have been trying to do for a long time. communism failed becuase people couldnt have private property. free society is based on private property, and labor as the exchange between individuals. it accepts that every demand must be supplied, and labor is there to do it.
you know if this idea was brought up, everyone would laugh and say its not reasonable, but in their hearts and minds would realize that it is exactly the solution for every problem ever. k maybe not ever, but the abolition of the church and organized religion is next on the list of things to do...
True, wolves may work together to bring down an elk. But which elk? The slowest, the weakest. When the elk herd starts to run from a predator, how fast do they run? Just fast enough so that every elk stays together? Or as fast as they f*kn' can to survive, leaving the weak behind? Survival of the fittest is not just a theory, its the natural law.
Now, this of course doesn't ensure human survival. If some major catastrophe strikes, it could possibly wipe out the entire human species. Of course, other species would likely survive (thus proving they were indeed stronger than humans). Now the more likely scenario is that something like Global Warming, even in the worst case possible, won't kill everybody. In the end, the strong will survive. People who actually know how to hunt for food and survive on their own, will win when the modern world crashes. Communities like the Amish will barely notice.
You are almost grasping the concept of free markets, but not totally. We do pay doctors more because their skills are more valuable, yes. If there was a sudden surplus of doctors (perhaps resulting from government-subsidized education) then the long-term effect would be less pay for doctors. This is basic free market economics. But that also does mean that we value Will Smith's skills tremendously more than we value a teacher. Do I agree with the fact that some actors and athletes get paid obscene salaries while teachers who work hard to make the world a better place get paid squat? NO. But the only way to change that is to stop supporting the industries that pay them. Watch independent films. Attend local sports games. But, if you personally decide that you cannot do that because you enjoy Will Smith movies and Patriots' games more, then you have no moral basis to claim the world is unjust. The world is what you make it.
I whole-heartedly reject your notion that its unfair how expensive medical school is. You basically say, if it was free then everyone could be a doctor and the world would be a better place. First, its expensive because it is a lot of work to teach someone how to be a doctor. Second, its expensive because people are willing to pay a lot to learn how to be a doctor. They are willing because they know it is easy to pay student loans back once you've graduated, because doctors earn a lot of money.
Now, I would certainly admit that it is easier to go to college and get any job you want when you are rich. But, it is NOT impossible for the poor either. I went to an expensive private college and came from a lower-middle class family. How? I worked my ass off in high school and earned scholarships. I'm sorry, but its reality. You have to work hard in life to succeed.
I don't want to turn this personal, but you're starting to sound like someone who has never held a job in your life. By the way, what you describe IS communism and it cannot by definition exist with private property rights. Its also important to note that no nation has ever actually achieved communism. They tried, but never got there. I argue the reason is that communism sounds good on paper, but it just doesn't work in nature.
my point is that if a natural catastrophe hit, the rich, not the strong would be saved, like hurricane katrina.
im not talking about free markets, im talking about a free society in which there is no money at all. im saying that the way in which we get the "value" of a doctors job to be equal of a teacher is not by boycotting one industry instead of another. it is realizing everyones labor is equally important and everyone relies on his own particular area of expertise, whatever it may be to contribute to society. in that way, an individual supplies the demand of society by practicing medicine, entertaining people...and in return, the society supplies the demands of the individual: food, housing, clothing, services, general consumption. we basically do this already. the difference is that with money, instead of making it a 1-to-1 relation, as a free society would facilitate, we say that doctors are more valuable (and so privileged) simply because they have more money. if two people want a house or a class of milk, the person who can pay more money is going to get it. the "better," "stronger", or "more deserving" person gets it. my point is that money is a false instrument to determine this. a model gets paid a ton to just stand there. a mcdonalds employee doesnt stop moving his entire shift, yet he gets paid only a little, even though the mcdonalds corporation is hugely wealthy on a global skill. that mcdonalds worker actually feeds and impacts more of the world than the model. whos to say whos job is more important, when we recognize that each persons labor is depended upon to supply a demand.
education is what is used as a gatekeeping tool to determine what professions are more valuable. if everyone has equal opportunity for education, then people can pursue whatever profession they want. people who dont want to go to school can do jobs that require less education like flipping bugers/ picking fruit and vice versa.
im not saying everyone would be a doctor if they could because education is free, i know a lot of people, myself included that would not want to go school for the time it takes. first, in a moneyless society it would not be expensive to teach medicine, it would be taught simply because a demand for knowlede needed to be suppled. instead of going into a job that makes a lot of money so you can pay off the amount of money it took you to get that job, you could do that job, simply because you want to do that job. money is the middleman that needs to be eliminated.
i dont think anyone would disagree that poorer people are more guarded from the higher education it takes to get a good job than the priviliged people, but i may be. you may have worked your ass off and got it, but a lot of poorer people work their ass off and dont get it and a lot of wealthy people half ass it and get it.
ive worked and i understand the problems in not having enough money to get necessities like food and education. i also understand the reality of people with money who dont need to work because they have enough.
the society i am talking about relies heavily on private property, as people trade their own labor to "buy" the things they want. this just switches the idea of me working against you for success in working with each other for success. it is certainly a more communal economy than capitalism, but capitalism in its essence is how much shit i can consume through the acquirement of money, whereas this one simply recognizes how people working together will benefit everyone, rather than money, which says one person serves another one. if you could not worry about how your going to eat, live and survive, what would you do? you could do any job, as long as society recognized there was an inherent need to supply that demand
I'm going to assume for a moment you're idea is valid. I then have some questions?
Who would build the McDonald's in the first place? Who decides where, when, how to build them?
What happens to you if you simply decide not to work? What if you want to go to college and learn new things for the rest of your life? (Personally, I love learning and if I was a billionaire I would spend my life earning new degrees)
Would you be pissed if your neighbor got to work as a supermodel and you got stuck cleaning sewers? Oh, sorry, you said everyone gets to have the job they want. Who would choose the job of cleaning sewers?
You completely misunderstood my point on the free market. The goal in life is NOT to "get the value of a doctors job to be equal of a teacher" as you said. The goal is to let the people decide for themselves how much they value doctors and teachers. That is what a free society does, decide things for themselves. Free markets are the only way to truly let people decide.
Where does this philosophy of yours come from? Life's been unfair to you? You struggle to earn your keep and feel the rich have it easy? I can't continue this debate without understanding where you're coming from. Send a private message if you must.
Best of luck
this idea maintains that demand would be supplied simply because it needs to be. for instance, if a community decides it would benefit if a mcdonalds business was created, then the community would contract architects, workers, etc to build one wherever it would be designated.
for instance...
i have a friend who had an idea about how to make a poorer section of the neighborhood "more beautiful," which in turn would make that section more valuable, profitable, etc. this was a definite cause-effect relationship, the only problem was whether it was worth it or not. the city said that no, they couldn't afford it because they didnt have enough money to support this cause. in this case money was simply a barrier between what needed to happen and what was going to happen.
so my friend went about organizing everyone to make this idea happen. he got all the homeowners to understand this was necessary and the different districts to understand why this would help the general economy. eventually the city agreed, because it got enough support that would translate into votes. the entire city petitioned the state and finally the state gave the city authority and money to beautify the section, the district flourished and everyone was happy.
the point is that it needed to get done, and the only barrier was money.
the point is this: society demands mcdonalds (or beautiful streets...). architects, construction workers supply that demand. in return, society supplies those architects and construction workers with their own demands (education, food, whatever)
demand is supplied simply because there is a demand to be supplied. this produces a demand for labor. an individual supplies society with labor, and society supplies him with his demands.
if people do not work, they are not producing for the society, and so they do not get supported by the society.
in my opinion, school is necessary to figure out skills and what you want to do, and it is great to go to school to acquire new skills, but you pretty much go to school to learn a trade so you can produce things in society to make a living.
my point was not that one job is not more desirable than the other one, it is simply as necessary as another one. cleaning sewers is not necessarily a "high-skilled" job but it is certainly necessary. not everyone is like you, and is not into going to school and writing papers and going to classes their whole lives. a lot of people are completely content with doing low skilled jobs and going home at the end of the day to get on with their lives. people find available jobs that adhere to their qualifications and work according to whats required of them in order to make good on their contracts. we do this now.
if there are jobs that absolutely no one wants, like jury duty, our government right now makes you pay a fine if you dont go.
im not sure i misunderstood you point about free markets but i may have. MY point is that the value of doctors ARE equal to that of teachers. doctors send their children to teachers, and teachers go to the doctor when they get sick.
what money does is equivocate value to people. i am worth more than you because i have more money. what im saying is that this is not a good way to determine who gets what. if a McD ceo and a burger flipper are both trying to get a glass of milk, the one with more money will get it because he has more money. therefore he is "privileged" and gets it because hes inherently more valuable. the point is that the ceo depends on the burger flipper just as much as the flipper relies on the ceo. they both need each other to sustain their jobs. if we realized that labor is all relevant and thus equal to each other, the way we decide who gets what is also equal.
its like in titanic, when the guy tries to give money to make sure he gets a spot on the boat to survive. no one would take that money if he knew he was going to die because of it. money, in this situation, has no value whatsoever.
as for where im coming from, i dont think its relevant really, except to say that i am educated on issues that many are not, and this is my own personal idea of how to solve the majority of the worlds problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDrtTtRzwo0
I think money is simply a way to prioritize our activities in this world. Nothing more. In other words, worldwide demand for goods and services will ALWAYS outpace supply without money. If people have 'free' access to everything, supply could never keep up.
Personally, I would spend my time doing something other than what I currently do for a living if I could. But then, society as a whole would be less productive (I help make things people want). Money is what allows me to prioritize between how I spend my time and the things I want and need in life.
That said, it seems you just disagree then with how we determine the value of jobs relative to one another. Again, the free market does this naturally. There are millions of people willing and able to work in a McDonalds. Therefore, the pay is low. But, there are probably only hundreds of people willing and able to be a CEO. Therefore, the pay is high.
I think you'd be more at peace with the idea of money, if the international banking industry wasn't so corrupt. They making the monetary rules of the world, and they skew everything in their own favor.
So, I'm fine with money. It's been around for thousands of years and is fine. But, I don't like our current monetary system of banks, stocks, bonds, interest rates, credit cards, speculators, etc.
By the way, the video link you provided seemed completely irrelevant to this thread. What did I miss?
if everything was free, then yes, i believe demand would go through the roof. but i also think that through the concept of money, we are always trying to make money, and advertise things people dont need in order to make a profit. what this does is essentially turn the world into products that we sell back to ourselves which is one of the reasons that the earth cannot sustain this type of consumer market.
i do disagree about how we determine the value of jobs relative to one another. there are millions of people able to work at mcdonalds for an entire day and then go off and do other jobs just so they can pay rent and feed their families. i have no doubt in my mind however that if they could, they would much rather do the work and get the salary of a ceo. society prevents this from happening, because not everyone has an equal opportunity for the same kind of education. many people are held down from making more money because of their poverty and inability to change their circumstances. the point is that everyone is necessary in the business to make it profitable and what money does is reevaluate everyones labor to say who is better and who is not. i consider this to be a new form of slavery, especially when everyone is doing equal work to produce for the company. whether it is "skilled" labor or not is irrelevant.
money, or its equivalent has been around for thousands of years but that doesnt make it right. slavery was around for a while and it was an accepted idea, so was monarchy and other things that society realized impeded personal freedoms. we dont do things many times because it is not affordable to do so, or, because we think if we cut costs on say, salaries, that means more money for us! this is evident in outsourcing and drug companies ideas on who gets priorities. because money is quantifiable, some people will always have more than others. if this is acceptable to everyone, then we have no problem. but our problems in this country are happening ecause of money. the rich want to keep theres to spend it, justifying that it will help poor people through the "trickle down effect." poor people want to tax the rich to provide the services needed to help them survive. life is too expensive and we need to produce not in order to make money, but because they simply need to be done. this is a total reevaluation of our social system and values yes, but would it be for the worse?
again, my point is that we need to completely reassess the world situation. we are overconsuming in general which is a big reason why things are messed up. this will not be stopped by the abolition of money. money is just a tool, like you said to determine value and priority. but the problem comes when we prioritize peoples lives over others because of money. the ceo will be privileged over the worker because he has more money. this negates our entire idea of equality for all. a no money society will decrease overconsumption because it ends an excess of money so people do not look for useless things to spend it on. this is debatable yes, but like i said, it is independent from the idea of overconsumption. overconsumption needs to be addressed as well because if we continue like we are, our world will not be sustainable.
the link is about uc santa cruz, the "radical" school that is the "#1 threat to america" whatever that means. its where i was educated and the place that helped me to come to my own conclusions about the world. anyway, im having fun talking about this with you in developing this idea, but it seems so incomprehensible to us, because "money" has been with us forever. so has poverty.
www.abolishmoney.com
I will admit your idea is growing on me. That said, I still don't imagine it is workable in reality. I think without money as a system of prioritizing life, we would need to have a high level of mutual agreement among all people regarding what is and isn't good for society. Generally speaking, people don't like agreeing with one another. We like to be independent.
I thought for a moment that was you in the video... clearly that guy is a nut. Yet, I've seen him used as a credible authority to talk down about Ron Paul. Go Fox news!
Post a Comment