Live Suite Dilemma

[Gert van Santen]

Peter Korsten schreef:
> Gert van Santen schreef:
> 
>> You think inside the box. :-)
> 
> No, I'm just not into fantasies.
> 
> There reason that right now, we can communicate with people all over the 
> world, and that we can choose the profession we want, instead of us all 
> being farmers, is money.

It is now, perhaps, but it doesn't need to stay that way.

> Invent a system where you get 'credit' (for want of a better words) for 
> the work you do, and can buy goods and services from that, it's still 
> money. Giving it a different name won't change its nature.

I want to get rid of any system where people get stuff because 
they do something. I want a system where people get stuff just 
because they exist, and they want it or need it.

> The problem lies more with financial products. History has shown that 
> capitalism is the system that works best, as long as it has checks and 
> balances. You can't trust the market to regulate itself, so you need a 
> government to do that.

That reminds me: huge parts of governments can go, too :-)

> Over the past few decades, governments have failed to do that, in the 
> mistaken belief that more money - be it real, like cash in hand, or 
> virtual, like stock options or investing in high-risk mortgages - is 
> always a good thing.
> 
> But if you look at the alternatives to capitalism, none of the so-called 
> communist or socialist states have managed to do without money. Because 
> if nothing else, it allows you to plan. It's a simple way to give a 
> weighted value to resources, services, labour, and all the other things 
> that allow you to produce something: be it a house, an internet service, 
> or a sack of potatoes.

I also want a system where there is no (or almost no) labour done 
by humans and there are no jobs. Having a job is a "modern" form 
of slavery. I don't like that.

> If you look at individuals and families, you could argue that it's 
> everybody's own responsibility to maintain his finances, but that's not 
> the nature of the animal called 'human'. Have a look at psychological 
> studies, and you'll see that men, in general, want to be seen as 
> successful, in other words, a preferred partner to mate with. And women, 
> in general, do prefer successful men for this very reason, because that 
> will give a better chance to their offspring.

I don't like the way this is going now. It only works out well 
for so many people.

> You could argue that we have evolved from those primitive instincts, but 
> you would be fooling yourself. 

I know we haven't. And we probably won't, until someone will 
genetically "improve" us. That's why money will always be a bad 
thing.

Maybe we will evolve to such a point,
> since men no longer go out and hunt/gather their food, but it will take 
> quite a while.

It can be over tomorrow, if money is gone and everyone can have 
everything they want and need for free.

> So in this day and age, to appear successful, you would have a big or 
> fast car, a big house, expensive jewellery, and all these things cost 
> money - more money than a normal sized house or car.

I agree. "In this day and age". But I still want it to change.

> And there we have a direct link between perceived successful genes and 
> money. And you want to get rid of money? I don't think it will happen 
> any time soon.

I really want money to go, though.

-- 

:-)

G e r t   v a n   S a n t e n
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.gertvansanten.nl