SabinStargem

joined 1 day ago
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Money is imaginary. It was invented for the purpose of saving time through pure convenience. Why not go a step further, and sacrifice some profit for the sake of giving everybody some security and agency? What efficiency we lose, we get back in people being able to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Money only has value if people agree that it does, and we should apply that understanding towards redefining the purpose of money: luxuries.

The elite have hoarded the value of what workers have provided to society, and then consistently throws those same workers under the bus. Your "material conditions", is just unfettered abuse.

Also, the system I laid out? It gives political agency to ordinary people, because they can protest and strike without losing their home or starving. This takes away the greatest tool of coercion that capitalism wields against workers. That is way more valuable than raw profit, because people can oppose bad actors in society. Like Schuemer, or Trump himself. Same goes for shitty workplaces - people can genuinely wait for a better job. This will force many bad companies out of business, because people want to be treated humanly.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago

No, cavemen were very egalitarian. This is because back then, you couldn't hoard much of anything - food spoils quickly, sex requires your partner to like you, and personal possessions were things like tools or the odd bit of clothing. It was when wealth could be preserved, such as livestock, stored grain, jewelry, and eventually coinage, that wealth became an hereditary thing.

This is why a future economic system has to be designed to prevent the excessive hoarding of wealth. Not too little, nor too much. Humans weren't evolved to be free of consequence, especially from each other.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today -4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I have been trying to put together a document that attempt this concept of ensuring the survival of people, while making money into something used for lifestyle upgrades. Also, heavy emphasis on wealth limits and preferring people over corporations. IMO, corporations are great for personal interests, but are beyond terrible when it comes to the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should make having a job optional, but rewarding.

UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Personally, I think they should be allowed to threaten - and for those minorities and good folk to openly promise bloody murder if the racists tried their luck.

The right-wing traditionally has a monopoly on violence, not just physical, but also in speech. When you are free of consequence, your reach will grasp ever further. Like what Trump is doing with his EOs.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, the two are complete opposites when it comes to style of speech: Hitler imparts certainty in the listener, and Trump causes utter confusion. The only similarity is that both are completely evil.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 8 points 13 hours ago

Drawn and quartered, with Tesla vehicles.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I would like to vote for a Progressive party. Sanders and friends for every ballot.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 17 hours ago

I wish. Sadly, despite being heavily armed, Americans are too polite and gentle when it comes to their politicians.