Back to Ted

      • Roflol@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

          • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • Roflol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wealth inequality trends to increase over time. Without some system that actively redistributes wealth, eventually a few people own everything of value, and ordinary people are obligated to do whatever the lords want in order to gain access to the material resources they need to survive. That’s feudalism.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Were I not lazy, I’d be willing to bet if I sift through their comments that I’d find something about landlords being bad.