The Future of Capitalism
It's OK to have private property, the question is how do people acquire it. Do they steal, cheat, kill to get it? Or do they get it from voluntary, peaceful exchanges? That is the big question, because not all forms of private property are legitimate if we look at the moral side of it. Obviously income through taxation, war, theft or other kinds of scams are all immoral.
John Nash, the genius of our era, has basically discovered that the best economic system is that where people act individually, but also take into consideration their impact on others as well. He called this Nash Equilibrium.
So therefore we need a system where people are free, but also take into consideration their action's impact unto others, or in other words they are free to compete, but they also must cooperate. Cooperative competition basically.
I don't know about you, but I feel like Government Regulation, Taxation, Legislation, Surveillance, is just simply not the way to achieve this, in fact it's actually the 180 degree opposite of this. It doesn't help people act individually, in fact it quite literally enslaves everyone, meanwhile "systemic risks" are still not contained.
Currently Society Looks Like this:
It must become like this:
Notice there is NO STATE and NO GOVERNMENT in an ideal society. There are just decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) where people cooperate and make decisions about a certain industry. Meanwhile you also have private enterprises built on the DAO that offer competitive services, high quality services or products for any market.
Think of it like Steem, Steem is a voluntary organization, a blockchain currency. Then you have Steemit, which is a private enterprise and @blocktrades, which is another private enterprise built on it. And then you have the users who are free to join and explore this organization. No Government, no State, just a voluntary community that can self-regulate itself without coercion.
The same idea can be applied to any industry, from healthcare to agriculture to transportation. When you really think about it, there is no room for a Government in a civilized society. The fact that currently the Government makes up 70% of the society, is a sign of a sick society, not a civilized one.
As technology and human consciousness evolves, society has to reflect this. The 6000 year old Beast has to be put to eternal slumber, and society must carry on without it.
People need to be people again. Individuals, free people, freely associating themselves with whomever they want, and forming voluntary organizations free of coercion.
The Beast has no place in a voluntary society.
Sources:
Good article. This principle and the mathematics is contained in the Hebrew scripture texts. Few know that it is there. My observation is that, if this wisdom is in an ancient book of knowledge it must be there for a reason. I agree with your conclusion
well said!
I sure hope the future looks like this! The potential of blockchains to distribute value to the proper hands that deserve credit for producing is immense. Great post!
And also create voluntary organizations where people can participate, not just be passive players.
Basically anyone can be politically active, and being engaged in their community, this is what should happen.
This is the whole reason I came here. Distributed systems of all kinds take entrenched power away from abusers and allows local (or digitally affiliated) individuals to make decisions about their own relationships.
government is built by bandits.
and bandits continue to control it.
Government is built by consent and coercion, so that those who consent every time they vote or argue along the false dichotomy of right vs left, us vs them, and even less than that, simply express the necessity of government, they are consenting, and the rest are coerced or forced to comply, so at this point it's not bandits that built government, but people who haven't robbed or stolen anything, and it's not bandits that continue to control it, but everyday people, because without those that consent and the submission of those that are forced, without these people there is no government.
Must implies coercion or force in this instance, I think you realize that forcing/coercing people against their will is also immoral and wrong, other than that little bit I am 100% with you.
It's not always humans that do the coercion, sometimes it's nature. Like if there is some earthquake or forest fire, people living in that zone "must" cooperate in the sense that they all have in their best interest to work together to avoid danger. So it's voluntary, but necessary cooperation, in this sense.
The future of capitalism is the death of this planet or the abolition of wage-slavery and money-based economics. Steem is a step in the right direction in terms of online platforms, that's for sure, but as for society as a whole I doubt the adoption of a GENUINELY voluntary capitalist economy is possible.
The reason being, unlike in a crypto market where you buy from a miner and you both win, this isn't the case in real life in everyday activities.
The average employee, even in the west, doesn't do their work voluntarily and definitely wouldn't for the "wages" they're given.
The only way to fix this is to eliminate capitalism as primary mindset as otherwise all other solutions such as having better tech and wasting less only results in the wealthy hiring less people and more riots happening, or more people dying because of selfishness.
I'd love what you're, and steem, proposes, but I simply prefer to call it Communism as capitalism DEMANDS profit before not only life, but the planet. Otherwise you simply cannot compete.
Obviously this is going to be a drawn-out dance where hopefully the greediness that's been ingrained into society diminishes as if not we're truly doomed.
It should be about quality, content, and what is moral, not what personally benefits YOU in the short term. What benefits another is a benefit to you.
Let me put it this way:
So it will always be a mix between public & private property. Private property can't be eliminated, nor it should be. They both have their own role, and different projects have different requirements.
For example the banking system should be public, like that with blockchains. But like a private service that can adapt easily to the demand of the people should be private.
I have just responded to a similar post here:
https://steemit.com/minnowsunite/@freebornangel/ofitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-voices-from-the-shallows-20170613t231658279z#@profitgenerator/ofitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-re-profitgenerator-re-freebornangel-voices-from-the-shallows-20170614t100712600z
The problem with this anti-money sharing economy is that most people are stupid, and while crodwfunding and sharing economies are good.
It's not enough to advance into the high-tech age. How are you going to convince people to fund your boring complex mathematics project? Well you can't use taxes and force, and it's not a popular subject, people might just fund an indie pop band instead of a serious science project.
So you must have money. A good scientist should be able to monetize his project, and then he will have enough money to invest that into future projects, without the need for social approval.
So a boring mathematician could just have the same social power as a popular musician.
You want equality, that is how you get equality. Because if you haven't noticed, people usually flock to pop things (just look at what 80% of content on Steemit is about) while ignore serious philosophical or science subjects.
There should be a way to make those things popular too, and we can't use taxes, so we must use private property for that.
That's the problem though, a good scientist, if they do not have the funds personally nor connections, cannot do anything at all. His potential is wasted and his invention may never even come to life.
It's insanely cheap to keep people alive, and thus the investment in that scientist to quit his day-job or simply no longer be homeless and be able to live poor and persue the----Actually let me just explain the way it works instead.
Resources are pooled, as we have excess as that's simply how it works.
From there people are given food and shelter, but nothing good. Just rice, or soylent-grade food, and beans. The basics. Their shelter is whateve they need to live at a minimum safely in the environment.
To go up from there you must provide value, much like steemit demands it. If you provide value you will be granted further benefit in the resource pool as dictated by your locality.
If you have an idea, it'll be able to be developed without working due to the above, as it will also be able to be funded without you having connections by simply presenting it to the public and/or your locality and requesting assistance.
If you have provided value into society, say, working, you'll be given rewards and better quality of life, and if you invent something you will have that indefinitely if it's successful as may your children have a slight upgrade in theirs.
This leaves incentives in and keeps genuine capitalism, or how it's typically used today, out and not ruining peoples lives. It also promotes further advancement as people are no longer pushed down and ignored nor are fundamentally good projects ignored simply because someone profits more from keeping it the old way.
What do I mean by that?
No longer are innovations like Tesla cars ignored. No longer is hydro-power ignored. No longer is genuine advancements ignored as the big players, the big boy capitalists, profiting from how it used to be.
The fact of the matter is goddamn every new car should be a motherfucking Tesla or using similar technology and nothing should be made with a planned obsolescence date where it is supposed to break or degrade.
It's wasteful, inefficient, bad for the environment, etc etc. It's capitalism.
Yes the market will fix it, theoretically, eventually, but that takes too long and such advancements were smashed many times by oil-based car manufacturers as they had interests that kept gas-powered vehicles on the roads, such as heavy partnerships with oil companies.
Everyone is to be given the basics, everyone is given equal opportunity, then the locality decides distribution based on contribution, and votes on what interests them and they'd like to fund.
Personally I'd want all my money into cleaning up plastics, the environment, and public transportation as of now. Space is not a big goal till we stop ruining what we have, and military is fucking useless.
Maybe you want better education, more advancements in computing, better medicines, and your opinion would be factored into the portfolio of spending, but no longer could you stamp on others good inventions or keep society back simply because you want to maintain your power and profit despite it hurting society as a whole.
Most things are specific, ask anybody and they'll have some interest they want to fix in the world. That's where their portfolio percentage would go. For me that'd be cleaning up the ocean and getting rid of the plastics out there and switching coal-plants and automobiles to clean energy, at least for a good time.