XPost: alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics, alt.politics.socialism   
   From: roger4911@yahoo.com   
      
   On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:12:24 -0500, Mockingbird wrote:   
      
   > Sure, engineers, musicians, artists, doctors, comedians, newscasters,   
   > bartenders, and any number of other jobs will be filled, but you're making a   
   > huge mistake in judgement.   
      
   > For one thing, you assume that everyone in the country is educated, like   
   > yourself.  Educated people love to work, because the work of educated people   
   > is rewarding in its own rite.  However, there is still a plethora of people   
   > in the country who are not educated enough to do high-level jobs.  For these   
   > people, the only job options are ones that do not require education or   
   > training: ditch digging, construction, heavy lifting, garbage collection,   
   > and the like.  For these people, regardless of how attractive you make the   
   > job, complete unemployment is an attractive alternative.   
      
   I know mentally handikapped people who are working every day and they love   
   to work and enjoy the friendship of each other during the work. They are   
   also proud that they can do something useful for others even if their   
   products are not exactly high-tech stuff.   
      
   That proves that even un-educated people can feel joy and pride in work   
   which is suitable for them.   
      
   The part you write about "ditch digging, construction, heavy lifting,   
   garbage collection" is an area which is becoming mechanized, remember my   
   story about garbage collection in my country and how it has been reformed.   
      
   When people are free to think and decide for themselves they will often   
   find something to do which is useful for the society while it also gives   
   them satisfaction and pride.   
      
   > Then, there is another concern.  You say that management is waste, paperwork   
   > is waste, and the jobs of bankers and stock brokers are waste.  In a sense,   
   > this is true.  However, you have neglected an important detail.  Who,   
   > exactly, do you propose, will manage the property licensing system?   
   > Everyone?  Nobody?  A computer?  Because someone has to monitor the   
   > computer.  An engineer, a computer programmer.  Somebody has to write the   
   > program, and someone has to ensure that it functions properly.  For one   
   > thing, such a program would be the Holy Grail of software - it would take   
   > the entire nation's supply of computer programmers years and years to   
   > complete.  And even when it was complete, how would it handle requests?   
      
   The car register is already in place and working in practically all   
   countries in the world. There is also a register for house and land   
   ownership, and in many countries also a boat register.   
      
   So most of this system are already in place and they work well.   
   We only need to combine these existing registers to a combined property   
   register, and calculate the average of value each person will be allowed to   
   register as his or her property.   
      
   Combining them is easily done by letting these registers communicate with   
   each other.   
      
   > Over an automated internet system?  What if the internet went down?   
      
   What if the car register goes down today? It that a big problem?   
   It will probably up and running within a few hours again, because it has   
   backup routines and reserve computer servers, etc..   
      
   The internet went down sunday afternoon this week where I live, and we had   
   to wait until monday morning before it was working again.   
   That was a bit irritating but hardly a catastrophy.   
      
   > You're facing the same problem that every other governmental and economic   
   > system in the world does.  It's called corruption.  And in a system where an   
   > entire nation's economy is controlled and divided up centrally, you are   
   > inviting disaster.   
      
   When the constitution guarantees material equality to all citizens it would   
   be detected quickly if somebody lived at a much higher standard of living.   
   So corruption won't pay. Cheating at a very low level is possible, but that   
   is up to each individual, do you want to stay within the rules and have a   
   good conscience, or do you want to cheat a little and be afraid to get   
   caught? Or do you want to organize cheating at a large scale and sooner or   
   later land in jail?   
      
   In any case it is not a threat to the society as a whole.   
      
   > Then there is the question of security.  Who, exactly, would prevent crime?   
      
   This type of society is effective in preventing crime to begin with.   
   There is no money to steal and nothing you can buy for money.   
   There are no poor people who have nothing to lose by committing a crime.   
      
   There is  also a police force and a court system, of course, but it will   
   have a lot less to do than today.   
      
   > Because I assure you, not everybody is satisfied with equality.  In fact, it   
   > is the lot of humankind to compete.  It is in the blood of human beings to   
   > seek relative power over each other.  In a system where equality is   
   > enforced, you are wasting possibly the most important of all human   
   > resources - the human desire to win.   
      
   It is not allowed to gain control over others, the individual freedom is   
   the most important principle in the new society.   
      
   But nothing stops you from being the world champion in chess or 100m   
   running. Nothing stops singers from competing for the popularity of the   
   public. You can compete and win in many areas, but it will only give you   
   the honor, not money or power over others.   
   There will still be football players and athletes, olympic games, Nobel   
   Prizes, etc..   
      
      
   > Trust me.  There is no limit to the number of problems I have with the   
   > United States government and the capitalist system.  There is no limit to   
   > the contempt I feel for political parties and party loyalty.  There is no   
   > greater pacifist, no person who wishes more for world peace and cooperation   
   > for myself.  I don't want to shaft my neighbor.  I don't want to steal their   
   > money for my own benefit.  In fact, I don't even desire a lot of money.  I   
   > live in a small home, making a modest paycheck for a job that I love to do.   
   > I would do it for less.  But I compete.  I compete for respect, I compete   
   > for knowledge, I compete for skill, I compete for happiness.   
      
   Okay, I have no problems with that.   
      
   > But even so, I continue to believe that the best economic system is a highly   
   > refined form of capitalism, and I believe that the best system of government   
   > is a highly reformed representative system.  A representative system where   
   > people are not afraid to remove incapable officials by vote, not a   
   > representative system where only two candidates can run for the Presidency,   
   > each having a pre-defined set of beliefs based on the beliefs of the Party.   
   > A system where we are able to elect officials based on ability and   
   > competence, not Party backing.   
      
   In Europe we vote for political programs, not persons.   
   I vote for a certain party no matter who happens to be the leader of that   
   party at the moment.   
      
   To vote for a person is an older system, and is like putting your trust in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)