Governments of the future

Great Debates
1

Submitted for your discussion…

I came up with this almost on a whim, but decided it was worth discussing. This government would probably only work in the future, because I doubt if we have the technology yet to fulfill these conditions.

Basically, it all begins with Industrial Automation. What this means is that absolutely everything that can possibly be done by humans is instead done by robots. This means everyone is pretty much unemployed. Now before you think this is stupid hear me out. After this everyone is given a paycheck that is more or less the same. Of course those who own the industries, etc. would get more, unless taken over by the government. Although this may seem like a money pit government is truelly isn’t, because although everyone gets paid the same paychecks from the government, or the companies they work for, that money would goto food, products, and other such luxuries/necessities, thus going back into the system. A money cycle, if you will.

The next step is a concept already crated called Eudamonia (sp?), in which everyone is free to achieve their own fulfillness however they wish. If that means working, they can work, if that means learning, they can learn, if it means slacking, they can slack, but basically everything will cost them money, contributing to the money cycle.

I have yet to find an acceptable name for this concept, but its up for suggestions if anyone has any.

If anyone has any questions, comments, suggestions, etc. please, feel free to ask.

2

This is Utopian and within possible reach, although not so simplified (I’m thinking of short work weeks, free education, health-care, social security, etc). Many say it is impossible, but look at our progress from one generation ago. Many claim that human destiny is not egalitarian eudaimonia based on mechanization, but hierarchical eudaimonia based on human slavery (as futurists, we should get used to calling slavery the idea in which people work all day without even preventive healthcare offered to them, despite the luxury they contribute too by keeping luxury affordable. This is not their choice, contrary to conservative theory, but rather it is because of poor education and religious breeding doctrines–the real sinister side to it all is that the wealthy know they are slaves and the slaves do not).

Now about this money. Modern money is supposed to do basically how you described–a point system to enable or limit choices. Communism casually did away with money and created a disaster, because an appliance factory never knew when to increase production or stop it, there was no price to smooth out the supply and demand (money is an ancient institution, but tribal communism predates even this one, but alas, industry is modern, hence the need for money).

However, one fundamental difference between your concept of money is that it is used strictly in this way, and not as an incentive. Conservatives would howl at the idea of money not being an incentive, that’s what they live for and, damnit, that’s what they want you to live for too. So, to overcome this problem, we need to find a way to deal with their concerns, because they usually think utopia is impossible, even stupid, and they don’t buy into audaimonia either, that would be a religious realm to them.

I think I have an idea. We could have a two-tiered system, one with real money, the other with fake money. Everyone gets a choice of which one they want to use. If they use the real money, well, we could just pat them on the heads and give them everything they want and more. But if they use the fake money, we’ll have to discourage their purchase and try to sell them something cheaper and more practical–a reverse salesman! (“Oh no, Mrs. Grillbaker, you definitely don’t need another pair of shoes…Oh, Mr. Loudenrude, that little red sports car makes you look fat and ugly.”) Will that be real or fake money today, sir?

Sadly, eudaimonia has been demonized under our very noses for spiritual reasons. Drugs have been used by certain conservative interests to scotch the idea of common bliss unrelated to individuals or money, confusing it with drugs and communism. I claim that eudaimonia prevents drug use. I claim, proudly, that nature never provided for happiness through exploitation. In other words, if someone is starving and miserable in the world related to our actions, then we can never be happy, by definition. I also claim that utopia is the path of least resistance, as proven by modern democracy and progress, and we waste so much energy avoiding it, because, I believe, we don’t know how to enjoy it. We currently enjoy false status from others when they are deprived or beneath us in some way, but this is a self-deception of status. Now we know why the ancient Greeks admonished each other to “Know Thyself,” with “Nothing in Excess.”

3

Thanks for the feedback Brian, I found your reply to be very inciteful and interesting to read (Not to mention a little difficult with some of those sentences. =)) and I just wanted to comment on one thing you said regarding…

“However, one fundamental difference between your concept of money is that it is used strictly in this way, and not as an incentive.” This was the purpose of the government. I am not ashamned to say it has some minor tints of an altered version of Communism, but what I thinking was a government where money was an equalizer. If everyone, more or less, got the same paycheck, nobody, again more or less, would be above anybody else, creating a Utopian equal soceity, thus allowing for the institution of Eudaimonia. For once everyone’s “equal”, there is no race to get ahead, and everyone is willing to merely do whatever they feel they must to reach their own personal enlightenment.

Other than this clarification I felt that your other suggestions were very interesting indeed, and it’s led me to think about several new topics I had not addressed before. Thanks, and I hope we may continue such intellectually stimulating discussions.

4

Not to nitpick, but you haven’t created a new form of government like democracy or national socialist. You’re proposing a new economic system like capitalism or communism.

As to your proposal:
First of all, mechanization has not shortened our workday by one minute. The reason for this is if factor A makes 2000 widgets in an 8 hour day and factory B can make 2000 widgets using advanced techniques that shorten the timefram to 4 hours, the second factory is not going to work a 4 hour day. They are going to produce 4000 widgets using the full 8 hour day and make twice as much money.

Second, unless you can manufacture any product or service that anyone will ever need or want, you will need some form of exchange. That could be money, credit, wampum, cows, pigs or chickens. The point is, if someone has a product that I can’t get, I may want to trade with them. As soon as you have trade, you have supply and demand and the usual economic rules apply.

Third, to manufacture enough of every product to meet every persons needs and wants, you need infinite raw materials which we don’t have.

Fourth, everyone will never be equall. There will always be something that one person has that another wants. Even if it’s not material goods, another person may have a girlfriend, charm, athletic or artistic ability or anything else that can be desired. As soon as you have desire, you have jelousy and hoarding.

Fifth, people don’t live for money just for the sake of owning it. People live for money because it brings possessions and power. If you didn’t need money, people would still crave power.

Sixth, If machines can do everything that humans do, how long until the machine realize that they don’t need humans?

And finally, Unless you can figure out a system that both rewards people with superior ability and ambition while limiting their actual power, every system of government will end up the same: A small group at the top of the pyramid who are more powerful and better off than the group at the bottom.

5

I think you don’t understand what I’m trying to get at msmith, I’m trying to create a system where, at its extremes, ALL industry is ran by a government system of some sorts, and ALL that industry is automated and mechanized, so that the average person doesn’t need to work. This allows for everyone to be financially equal, excluding those who’re elected to political power. Everyone is given the same paychecks, which they may then use however they deem fit. Which then allows everyone to do whatever they want, given now that they have so much freetime, which is where Eudaimonia sets in. Which then allows them to decide whteher they would like to know the most, be the strongest, slack off, whatever, just that whatever they do (besides the last) will eventually cost them money, which isn’t really that big a thing when you don’t need to worry about getting it. In my system I could care less if there is still power struggles over such things as looks, charisma, etc. In fact, since money is no longer a factor survival of the fittest, smartest, quickest, whatever, etc. would most likely reinstate itself, and people would get together out of things other than basic greed. My basic wish is to eliminate the Ratrace of life. The government pays you, then you pay it back, and so the cycle continues, and so everyone is happier, because they have no financial worries, there are less, at best no, classes, and everyone is free to do their own thing.

6

msmith, you’re talking about microeconomics when the OP was directed in a more macroeconomic sense.

To apply your example macroeconomically: Assume that there are a whole bunch of widget factories across the country. A new technology comes which allows doubled widget production with the same amount of raw materials. It would take some time to even out, but eventually this is what would happen: widget prices would drop, people would purchase more widgets (but not twice as many), and many widget factories would downsize or go out of business. Assume again that widget production, as a result, increases by 50% (but will use only 75% of the resources as before). First of all, widget workers will get paid less, because the demand has dropped. And 25% of widget workers are now unemployed. The standard of living has risen for most people (more widgets for everyone!), but has decreased greatly for the widget workers. That is one of the reasons why some type of welfare system is needed in a capitalistic society, so those displaced by technology still have a chance of living above the poverty level.

But that was kind of a hijack.

This makes it pretty easy. If it were “almost everything”, then the situation would be a lot more complicated. “Absolutely” means that machines could handle everything: psychiatry, police, politics, movies, music, art, education, the production of more machines, etc. Everyone would receive an equal “paycheck” from the government. Prices would be solely determined by supply and demand; the only problem would be allocating resources to control the supply of different products/services. The way to do this more fairly would be having a great supply of necessities, such as food, water, shelter, health care, etc. to keep a low price and using the rest of the resources for luxuries such as sports cars, resort hotels, etc. People could still work if they wanted to, as some people would prefer a human touch rather than a machine (psychiatry, prostitution, massages, art, music, etc.).

This is a pure socialistic system (not communistic) and is one example of a Utopian society. The only problem would be putting this system into place and keeping it in place … human greed and lust for power could make some things difficult.

7

Lets look at the way people live in the Star Trek universe;
there is no money in the Federation (gold-press latinum is Ferengi). One assumes that payment is entirely electronic transfer of funds. One has a debit account to draw from, and when the account drops below zero, the account reverts to a credit account.

Furthermore, one can claim that in a world where all products are replicated, the only work that is done is in the service industry. A replicator is hooked up to a power source (Fusion, antimatter, or quantum singularity reactor) and tanks of raw material, one can create anything at the push of the button. Another button push beams the object exactly where the buyer wants it.

One can make as much…stuff…to satisfy one’s wants: there’s no impulse to hoard, since stuff is so plentiful, stuff falls below comodity value.

All economic systems address the following:
Infinite Wants versus Finite Resources.
creating infinite resorces changes everything.

8

Manocracy - The reason we have welfare is not “so those displaced by technology still have a chance of living above the poverty level”. Those people are expected to retrain or learn a new skill and rejoin the workforce. We have UNEMPLOYMENT as a temporary safety net for people who lose their jobs so they have time to do this. WELFARE is for people who are unable to work.
The whole idea silly to me. Increasing production to infinite levels will help to eliminate economic disparity between people however it dosn’t resolve the issue of how to govern them.

Just because you have a computer make the laws and have robots handle law enforcement doesn’t make utopia. Didn’t you ever see Terminator or T2? People don’t wan’t to be rule by a machine any more than they want to be ruled by a dictator.

9

But people would not be ruled by a machine. See, if this system were to be put in place, it would still require a human government, as machines just don’t cut it for something that great, and these human governors would most likely be the Presidents of the companies that came out on top during whatever revolution (Peaceful or otherwise) took place neessary to begin this system. If only one company came out on top and formed a monopoly then this system works maintaining that the people keep the “President” in check moneywise. If multiple company owners succeed in maintaining afloat and proftable in this revolution than it would most likely maintain democractic ties, whereas one owner is voted in, by the people, to the be “Supreme President” over the entire automated industry, and thus over everything other than the people’s direct lives. I for one would prefer to see the second option fall into place, because with the first you are dipping into the realm of dictatorship, and that can lead to the necessity of further revolutions to oust an unworthy ruler and could lead to the failure and shunning of this new system.