Back to Ted

  • Roflol@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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.

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

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months 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.

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

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
              ·
              11 months 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