this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
1073 points (95.9% liked)

Memes

45620 readers
1141 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Back to Ted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Roflol@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If i care for area for years, build, plant etc, someone else can come take it?

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, but you should not be allowed to accumulate more than what you can consume when your community is starving

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What should happen is that the people who haven't sowed the crops could do some work in order to earn access to the crops. Then we could create some kind of system whereby people get rewarded for the work they provide with an abstract token. We could call this money and people could exchange it for goods and services.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or those that are able to farm can do that and provide the food for those that can cook and provide that for those that can build who can provide that for those who can sew etc etc and all that can be shared with those who can't do anything because at the end of the day a person's worth should not be determined by what they can provide.

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave people to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They incentive would be the prosperity of the community as long as people stop seeing each other competitive. Personal gain over dead bodies is only cancer.

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you're asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, they developed this mentality when surviving could also be competitive. When there was not enough food for all and somehow surviving meant that it will not be for all. Now we prefer to destroy tones of food in favor of economy because if there is extra food this means that the price go down

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think there is only so much humans can change. We aren't beings of infinite moral potential and there will always be points of conflict.

[–] Roflol@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you can throw people out of your community? Then some communities will be a lot better off than others

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but as long as the "better" community doesn't interfere and doesn't try to take advantage of the less good communities I don't see a problem. And of course doesn't steal them their area and resources. Or does't try to expand in ways that they accumulate more goods and resources than they need and can consume

[–] Roflol@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm, who decides when they have too much area, and stops them from not following rules?

Is this a genuine question wanting to find an answer? Only their consciousness can really prevent them or a "law enforcement" that we should first find a way to be uncorrupted. Is this realistic nowadays? Of course not, but we were talking hypothetically I think