American Justice Party Platform

While I am pleased that I was able to start this debate and kickstart the process of dialectical thought on several important subjects, I think we could be a little more civil. The post I red about violent overthrow of a democracy that cares for its people was going too far. We can do better than that. Paul is right that we should take a step back and think about stuff before posting. As the op, I feel partly responsible for the way this has played out. And I would like to apologize to the staff.

FWIW I never claimed that people, as a whole, are inherently lazy.

 

You don't claim that exactly, word for word.  It's true..  Some of your statements though, seem to be contradicting this above statement.

I'm not saying that all humans are lazy, although I do believe that is our "natural" state.

If it's our natural state, then wouldn't that make it inherent in us? and by correlation, wouldn't that also mean that all humans are lazy?  I'm confused by this.    

Look at tribes that live in the rainforests, where they don't need any heat, were food is abundant and grows all around them.  Do they build brick and mortar houses?  No, they build huts with the minimum amount of effort necessary to keep the rain off them.  They don't organize themselves to build farms (they don't need to), they don't build roads, they don't build almost anything.
They don't do anything other than the minimum amount of work needed for day to day life.

If someone else were to build their huts for them, and bring their food to them, they would be quite happy to do nothing but play all day.  Why would they work if they didn't have to?

Why do you believe that humans 'want' to work if they don't have to?

These quotes seem to imply, to me, that you think that people are, in fact, inherently lazy, and that you seem to also imply that if these tribal people were building roads, building farms, and building houses that are not necessary to them, then that would be considered work, but doing anything else is in life is play and, as seems to me to be implied by context throughout your posts, lazy.  Sorry if I misinterpreted that, but that is how I interpret it still.  My thinking, from what I understand of hunter gatherer people is that they do not consider what they do at any time to be work.  Because of the things that you wrote about hunter gatherer people, I suggested that you do not have a grasp of these cultures.  It may have came across as rude to make such a statement.  I apologize if you took it that way at all.  I'm glad that you are interested to learn more about them.  I think that in doing so, that I, personally, have learned a great deal about not only the potential for myself to grow into a better steward of my land, but also in ways that we can create our own culture and life-ways to be more in tune with permacultural design.  I hope that you will see those connections as well.

Interestingly, not long ago I read a great book that I highly recommend to you, Peter, and to everyone else.  It's called Miraculous Abundance.  It's about a farm in Normandy, France, but it is also partly about the author's experiences with a tribe in South America, and how those experiences influenced the way that he decided to live and develop his farm in France.  It's also about working hard, but in this case with the knowledge that, like in most bigger permaculture projects, the big work at the beginning is rewarded by less and less work later on.  

The author also mentions that the tribal people that he spent repeated time with have as part of their life that as a matter of course each successive generation naturally inherit the existing trails that have been tended and planted with food, medicine, craft, and tool supplies by previous generations of villagers in the area, and because of this they do not have to do the bigger projects, they just walk the trails and gather as they go on a hunt.  Also, some of these people do farm, but only in small patches in the forest.  They do not need to clear massive areas and cultivate fields to get their food, but neither do we, if we do things differently.  That's a lot of what permaculture is all about.            

Roberto pokachinni wrote:

FWIW I never claimed that people, as a whole, are inherently lazy.

 

You don't claim that exactly, word for word.  It's true..  Some of your statements though, seem to be contradicting this above statement.

I'm not saying that all humans are lazy, although I do believe that is our "natural" state.

If it's our natural state, then wouldn't that make it inherent in us? and by correlation, wouldn't that also mean that all humans are lazy?  I'm confused by this.    

You're right, I expressed myself poorly.  

What I meant the first time is that (I believe) that people are not naturally inclined to work, that we only work when we feel a need to work.  I shouldn't have called that being 'lazy'.

Being lazy is avoiding work even when there is a need to work.

Many people are lazy (avoiding work) even when there is a need to work.  I think that if we gave everyone the basics (housing and sustenance) that many more would not feel a need to work and therefor would not choose to work.

Also, I'm not against charity, when it's a personal choice.    I'm against mandatory charity that is administered by the government.

I'm against the government taking my property away and giving it to some stranger, because somebody else has decided that I'm not entitled to keep what I worked for but that somebody that sat around on their ass is now entitled to it.

It should be MY choice what to do with my property, not some bureaucrat

As I posted earlier in the thread, those with lots of money are using the government to make sure that they benefit the most. As Warren Buffett says, there is a class war and we (the rich) are clearly winning.  

I think that people like working when the environment is positive.  When people are nice to each other and they are working toward something that benefits society. There is a lot of research that shows that workers' satisfaction with their job is more about that than the amount of money they have.  

Our culture is creating the opposite of that.  I would like us to build ladders that create more positive work places.  Calling negative work places "reality" doesn't inspire anyone to make them better.  

Research shows that in the long run, companies that prosper are the ones in which people believe in the work they are doing.

Heck, there are a lot of people working on permies.com for free for many years, so it can't be the pay.

John S
PDX OR

As great as we are, John Duda, I think Canadians are too polite and humble to consider ourselves that greatest of societies you mentioned. Oh, wait, you meant...

On a serious note, I think it's hard to see the whole picture from where we are right now. We have too much of the subjective buffetting us in our normal lives to be really objective about these issues, I think.

As to natural human goodness or laziness, I don't think it's all that simple. I think that the observation about some people requiring more structure to their work environment is spot on. I think we see the same in educational situations where some students do really well with Independent Study Units, while others can't seem to get any work done outside of a classroom.

We are a species of animal that is evolving under many different scenarios of conflicting stressors. Is it really any wonder that people coming from family or culture with a history of hard work at a young age, perhaps farmers that need to be largely self-directed throughout the work day, would perhaps continue to do well under those or similar circumstances? Is is really that puzzling to have people used to the strictures of an educational system suddenly floundering if offered too much freedom of decision?

And yes, I know people who are deeply entrenched in the sub-culture that lives for Welfare Check Day, never seek to better themselves, and never feel bad about living off others' taxes. I have to believe that the Welfare Check sub-culture is one of society's failings, but that doesn't mean that government assistance programs are to blame.

Much of this discussion on human nature is largely besides the point, as it seeks to vilify opposite ends of the problem without realising they are symptoms of the same illness.

I think something has to be done with the two largest unproductive segments in society to fix the situation, those being the hereditary Welfare class and the hereditary rich class (and, to some extent, those who make fortunes pushing around papers and moving funds from one place to another). I think a winning system will find ways to both incentivise the poor to use a revamped welfare system, not as a safety net, but as a trampoline, to propel themselves upward, and also to incentivise the rich to reinvest their capital in ways that enrich society, through charities and such.

I think it's important to incentivise the behaviour we want to see around us, instead of shaming people or taking away what others have earned. While it is true that some wealthy people inherited the seeds of their wealth and did nothing but sit on it, others started very much lower on the ladder, and worked hard to earn what they made. I don't think it's fair to have their personal sacrifices overlooked because of the magnitude of their success.

And yes, I would love to see people acting altruistically for altruism's sake, or better yet, because they genuinely care about the people and/or causes they support, but how about trying to think up positive solutions that could work for everyone, that could be implemented now from the place and situation in which we find ourselves now? So what if the Warren Buffetts of the world are provided with a good financial reason to reinvest massive amounts of capital into fixing society, as opposed to just doing it for the good of all? Does it make society any less "fixed?"

Finally, the other part of the argument that misses the point is the one that suggests that safety nets should be eliminated. It is basic vested self interest that some taxes go to helping the poor. The alternative is elevated crime and drug use rates. These create a larger drain on society.

I definitely think that rehabilitation and work training should be closely linked to government assistance, and that government assistance should be available for all stages of that recovery process. I also think that if a society cares for the future, and wants domestic population growth instead of immigration, that childcare should be subsidised completely, such that parents can more easily manage that work/family balance.

Honestly, I think that there might be a lot of potential to the Universal Guaranteed Income idea. Imagine the following scenario: Buddy is poor. He finished his Bachelors' in Music, minored in French, finished teachers' college, and now he finds out there are no jobs for teachers, as most are opting to continue working past normal retirement age. So he takes a few different jobs, and tries to play music as his side-gig, but he needs to eat and pay rent and make payments on his tuition loan. There's never enough time to work for more money, and never enough to go anywhere with his music, and the teaching population just keeps on aging...

Now enter Universal Guaranteed Income. Imagine that below a certain dollar value, the government paid you assistance to make it up to that dollar value above the poverty line. As long as you are employed, you can save a certain amount per paycheck in the bank (the incentive to stay employed). As long as you're on assistance, you'd keep appointments with the welfare equivalent of a parole officer, ensuring that you get the most out of all programs the government has to propel people up and off of UGI. The government would top up your pay to the minimum level until such time as you exceed that level on your own, including regular savings that go away and aren't touched. The employment parole officer would continue to be available, and the services as well, up to a level of earnings where such measures wouldn't be required.

So Buddy would keep the best of his jobs, take government assistance, all that, and spend time on his music, or on trying to find a better job, perhaps one in his field, rather than needing to spend all his time just scraping by. Perhaps he would take a Music Production Course at the college level and get to his music career that way, or perhaps he'd go back to school to continue on in academia and teach at the university or college level.

And what would the rich get, other than tax credits, for investing in society? Power through reknown. Having your name plastered all over important pieces of infrastructure might have appeal to certain people, even if the more refined among them shy away from displays of opulence.

I think this might be a way out. Imagine, for a moment, the Buffettloop, a multi-tubed hyperloop system that connects all major cities in the continental USA, and several smaller dedicated hyperloops in North, Central, and South America, providing conveniently short commute times from halfway across the continent for millions of people. Imagine the impact such an infrastructural development could have on everyone in the whole continental United States and beyond, not just those who build and operate such a thing, but the long-term energy and cost savings for commuting and transportation of goods. Imagine on how many tongues, and in how many minds, Buffett's name would be, for generations after his death.

I mean, if you already have more money and influence than you could ever spend, what else is there but shots at terrestrial immortality?

I think many of the previous posts got stuck belabouring the negative. There is way too much negativity out there to allow oneself to get bogged down in it. Better to better the world by learning and doing good things than wasting ones' time being angry at bad guys. I think I heard someone say that somewhere, once.

Now I know my solutions thus far are boring, and not as revolutionary as some would like, but they have the benefit of being attainable. People aren't ideally altruistic beings, nor are they all lazy scum. We are all capable of behavour along that whole spectrum, I think. We can choose how to behave. I think the best solution going forward will jigger the situation such that, for the wealthy, reinvesting their wealth in society will have clear societal benefits for themselves, while for the poor and working people (the rest of us), the system is set up to ensure that they can make the most of their efforts to better their situations, without creating even the illusion of a system where it pays better to take welfare checks and not work.

-CK

I think I should clarify something.

While I am apposed to the government simply giving away food and lodging, I am not apposed to the government providing them in EXCHANGE for something that benefits society, even if it's just sweeping sidewalks and picking up trash, or (more importantly) going to school to learn a trade that benefits society.  
Perhaps even requiring a certain number of years of government service in exchange for the education, perhaps 2-3 years of service in exchange for each year of education.
You want to be a doctor but can't afford the school?  No problem, if you have the aptitude the government will foot the bill for the 8 years of schooling and in exchange you will work in government hospitals for 20 years (residency counts towards your service commitment)  After that you can either switch to a practice in the private sector are continue in the public healthcare with a bump in salary.

And yes, I see healthcare as a public service, like the police or fire dept.

Anyway, I'm not opposed the government providing a hand up, I'm just apposed to government hand-outs.

Might

Chris Kott wrote:As great as we are, John Duda, I think Canadians are too polite and humble to consider ourselves that greatest of societies you mentioned. Oh, wait, you meant...

I meant Canada......

John Duda wrote:
I think you may have misunderstood the MANIFESTO. This section says that "all workers in a company own equal shares in the company".

I took it to mean in your example that your one employee owns 100% of the business. To extend this out, let's say that after you spend untold hours preparing and implementing your business which you started yesterday. So you're doing well and one day you hire one employee. He starts on Monday, he's the owner. On Friday who writes the paycheck. It's my opinion that you won't get one. So who writes that one paycheck.

Considering an employer also works for the company that he/she owns (I mean, I've always heard that owning a company is a lot of work), I would assume that both the employer and the employee would hae equal shares in the company. So, in Bethany's case, she'd have a 50% share in it, and her employee would have a 50% share.

Personally, I have a hard time envisioning how that would work out well in practice. I mean, you hire one person to help you, and they might not be well trained yet, and they might not be as knowledgeable as you, since you've been dealing with the nitty-gritty for a while. They might mess up the business, and that might not be good for anyone. But, perhaps in practice it would work better, depending on how it was set up. In the Mudgirls Manifesto (we had a giveaway for this book a few weeks back), all the Mudgirls are equal--regardless of their experience or knowledge--and they manage to make that work out well. So, it looks like it can be done. I don't know if I'd mandate that kind of arrangement, though.

On the other hand, with companies getting as large as they are, and having almost the power (or maybe more power) than governments, I think it might be good to somehow put checks against that. I don't care for monopolies.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:I think I should clarify something.

While I am apposed to the government simply giving away food and lodging, I am not apposed to the government providing them in EXCHANGE for something that benefits society, even if it's just sweeping sidewalks and picking up trash, or (more importantly) going to school to learn a trade that benefits society.  
Perhaps even requiring a certain number of years of government service in exchange for the education, perhaps 2-3 years of service in exchange for each year of education.
You want to be a doctor but can't afford the school?  No problem, if you have the aptitude the government will foot the bill for the 8 years of schooling and in exchange you will work in government hospitals for 20 years (residency counts towards your service commitment)  After that you can either switch to a practice in the private sector are continue in the public healthcare with a bump in salary.

And yes, I see healthcare as a public service, like the police or fire dept.

Anyway, I'm not opposed the government providing a hand up, I'm just apposed to government hand-outs.

I rather like this idea. Cuba has a similar practice, and more doctors than you can shake a stick at.

Ryan Hobbs wrote:Cuba has a similar practice, and more doctors than you can shake a stick at.

This thread continues to be eye opening and educational.  

While it apparently still has a few problems, it seems like an good foundation for a public healthcare system.

Thank you for that information.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:I think I should clarify something.

While I am apposed to the government simply giving away food and lodging, I am not apposed to the government providing them in EXCHANGE for something that benefits society, even if it's just sweeping sidewalks and picking up trash, or (more importantly) going to school to learn a trade that benefits society.  
Perhaps even requiring a certain number of years of government service in exchange for the education, perhaps 2-3 years of service in exchange for each year of education.
You want to be a doctor but can't afford the school?  No problem, if you have the aptitude the government will foot the bill for the 8 years of schooling and in exchange you will work in government hospitals for 20 years (residency counts towards your service commitment)  After that you can either switch to a practice in the private sector are continue in the public healthcare with a bump in salary.

And yes, I see healthcare as a public service, like the police or fire dept.

Anyway, I'm not opposed the government providing a hand up, I'm just apposed to government hand-outs.

It is interesting that Maine tried this and it was an utter failure.

Maine has one of the oldest, if not THE oldest population of a state here in the USA. As such the baby-boomers are aging and nursing homes are in desperate need of nurses. So needing them, they offered free tuition to nurses...for awhile. What they found out is, the State of Maine footed the bill for their nursing degrees, then they either left the state for better paying jobs, or got out of nursing altogether when they found better paying jobs.

What to do?

Keep footing the bill chasing good money after bad, or stop the program? Our Governor chose the latter. We already pay THE highest taxes in the nation per capita, how could we continue?

Peter VanDerWal wrote:

Ryan Hobbs wrote:Cuba has a similar practice, and more doctors than you can shake a stick at.

This thread continues to be eye opening and educational.  

While it apparently still has a few problems, it seems like an good foundation for a public healthcare system.

Thank you for that information.

Something I believe in is the infinate perfectability of human endeavors. Meaning, that as long as we continue to talk things over, there are infinate chances to compromise from opposite extremes and find a way of doing things somewhere in the middle that solves the problems and concerns of both sides. This is built on the idea of dialectics which was the philosophy created by Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel in the early 1800s for examining ideas and their usefulness to mankind. This philosophy was further developed by other thinkers into Dialectical Materialism which is used to examine material conditions of people throughout history using the same methodology. Though now I have gone off topic a bit. What I mean to say is that I intentionally started the conversation with extreme ideas so we could start the process of dialectical sublation, that is a methodical if somewhat messy process by which two opposing factions integrate their ideas with each other and learn from each other without either side necessarily loosing.

Maine has tried a few other things as well.

For instance, who could ever deny a poor person the right to quality drinking water?

At the same time, we are a tourist state and want to keep our roadside ditches clean of trash. One way we do that is by having a 5 cent refund on bottles and cans. Soda, milk bottles, juice bottles, beer cans, liquor bottles, A LOT of personal drinks qualify for this. It is not a tax. You pay 5 cents extra when you buy a qualifying drink, and when you "return" your returnable empty bottle you get 5 cents back. If you want to chuck the bottle out the window, fine, your loss of 5 cents...and other people walk the ditches and get the money. PERFECT!

Except now we have greedy people. Wanting to buy beer and cigarettes that food stamps cannot buy, they go into stores, buy cases upon cases of bottle water, go out into the parking lot, dump the water out, then go back into the store and return the bottles for 5 cents a bottle, get the money in cash, and buy the beer and cigarettes they really wanted. You see it all the time.

In this case it is a Federal Program, so the people of the USA pay for lots of water that gets needlessly wasted so they can get cash to buy what they can't with their food stamps. It is really sad...both good programs, put to utter waste by greedy people.

I was told to say "might" in my "sentance"

Might

Peter VanDerWal wrote:I think I should clarify something.

While I am apposed to the government simply giving away food and lodging, I am not apposed to the government providing them in EXCHANGE for something that benefits society, even if it's just sweeping sidewalks and picking up trash, or (more importantly) going to school to learn a trade that benefits society.  
Perhaps even requiring a certain number of years of government service in exchange for the education, perhaps 2-3 years of service in exchange for each year of education.
You want to be a doctor but can't afford the school?  No problem, if you have the aptitude the government will foot the bill for the 8 years of schooling and in exchange you will work in government hospitals for 20 years (residency counts towards your service commitment)  After that you can either switch to a practice in the private sector are continue in the public healthcare with a bump in salary.

And yes, I see healthcare as a public service, like the police or fire dept.

Anyway, I'm not opposed the government providing a hand up, I'm just apposed to government hand-outs.

Peter, this is exactly what I meant by "ladders".  Ways that people can build up their skills and become more productive over time. Our culture would benefit immensely if we saw this as important to who we are.  When we can see our people as potential assets instead of problems, our team will be happier and more productive. Yes, sometimes the ladders temporarily require more input than their worth for awhile, but in the end, they improve the workers' sense of self esteem and desire to contribute.  No more endless welfare or endless wealthfare.  More connected feelings across the society.  More pride, and more respect for all.
John S
PDX OR

Travis Johnson wrote:
It is interesting that Maine tried this and it was an utter failure.

Maine has one of the oldest, if not THE oldest population of a state here in the USA. As such the baby-boomers are aging and nursing homes are in desperate need of nurses. So needing them, they offered free tuition to nurses...for awhile. What they found out is, the State of Maine footed the bill for their nursing degrees, then they either left the state for better paying jobs, or got out of nursing altogether when they found better paying jobs.

What to do?

Keep footing the bill chasing good money after bad, or stop the program? Our Governor chose the latter. We already pay THE highest taxes in the nation per capita, how could we continue?

I think mandating that they have to actually work in the state--or in high need areas--or they will have to pay off those loans, would work.

For example, the loan forgiveness programs for teachers. My cousin---and many others that I know of--took this option. They worked faithfully in high needs areas for required amount of years and their college loans were forgiven. I think that is one example of a successful, useful program, as often students in high need/poverty areas do NOT get the teachers they need. There is a very high turnover rate in these schools because (1) the work is very hard, much harder than in well off areas, and (2) the pay is usually far less than in the upper-middle class school. The students in high poverty areas need better, more experienced teachers that can stick around and give these kids some stability. THey need that kind of teacher far more than those in well-off schools.

So, I think having the requirement to stay and work or you owe the money, might work well for nursing, just like it does for teaching.

John Duda, Peter, and Travis,
You guys seem to be saying that the only options are totalitarian communist dictatorships or corporatocracy like we have in the US. I haven't seen anyone on this thread desire to have a communistic totalitarian dictatorship.  Which straw man are you fighting?  None of you have responded to the idea of the social democratic societies of Europe, which have higher social mobility, drastically less violence, mental health issues, incarceration, race issues,  fewer poor people per capita, and greater happiness and connection.  They do have fewer billionaires, but the price has to be paid somewhere.  We would have to do it in our own American way, of course, but the direction is much better.  Canada is in the healthier direction.
John S
PDX OR

Might

Forgetting the mistakes of the past and dredging up old systems is a sin.... in my opinion. I read the MANIFESTO, it all sounds so similar.

John Saltveit - very well put.

I'm always looking for the solution to a problem, not punishing or judging others. Comparing corporations vs. poor people, it is astonishing how maximizing profits for shareholders is seen as some solemn duty, but doing what one needs to survive is considered immoral.

Bethany Dutch - your business model is not typical. This is not how the majority of money in the US is made.

While I like the idea of small businesses, and have almost exclusively worked for them, they have some major limitations. The primary one is benefits. For me to work in the conventional sense, I require medication which I could only get if unemployed. I cycled through this issue for years, working without meds, being hospitalized and medicated, rinse, repeat. Despite having an culinary degree, and a bachelors in accounting, I never had a job with any benefits, not sick days, not vacation days, not health insurance, not retirement.

John Duda- the propaganda spread in the Western World about communist nations is not to be believed. Those who come here are obviously prejudiced. Over and over I hear people asking for proof that other economic systems work for everyone, today's corporate capitalism doesn't work for everyone, in fact, in works for very few. Why shouldn't they have to prove that corporate capitalism works?

The worst position to be in, in the US, is the working poor. Too much money for benefits, but not enough to survive. I would like to see a better bridge between the two.

There are various ways to get college degrees paid for, bachelor's degrees are trickier, mostly relying on government grants. But once you looking at graduate degrees, you just have to be open to different options.

John Duda-
If we focus on the past we spend lots of time talking about enslaving millions of Black Americans and millions of Native Americans killed. Is that really constuctive?

Let's talk about what we can do now.  I am still talking about the current day models of a European/Scandinavian social democratic society and why we should move in that direction.

I am still interested in hearing a response.
John S
PDX OR

"the propaganda spread in the Western World about communist nations is not to be believed. Those who come here are obviously prejudiced."

We can't listen to the hundred million witnesses who were exterminated, You say ignore those who escaped. In your mind who do we listen to.... the stalag guards how about the gulag guards....the shower attendant, the pravda editor.


"Why shouldn't they have to prove that corporate capitalism works?"

Because in a free society there's no limit to how high one can grow. Most of your hated corporate enemies have a history that goes back to one individual who succeeded. Here's the all the proof I need, communists hate them. They hate success, because it's something they've never seemed to achieve.

Might

"present day models of a European/Scandinavian social democratic society "

Let's take European examples:    Italy, Greece, Portugal.



I once worked as a contractor at a US government facility. The manger there said to me:

"I have 250 people working for me, if I had two contract workers I could get something done". The only interests his employees had was the work schedule, the holiday schedule,  the vacation schedule, and the retirement schedule.

John Duda wrote:

"I have 250 people working for me, if I had two contract workers I could get something done". The only interests his employees had was the work schedule, the holiday schedule,  the vacation schedule, and the retirement schedule.

Looks like they utterly hated their job.  I only met a couple of lazy people when I was an employee.  Most people in my industry (showbiz special effects) would work a 10 hour day and then go home and work some more.  They adored their jobs!

If people hate their jobs they might not want to work at them.

I think a lot of time is wasted discussing these issues as though we could go to a blank slate again, without mass unemployment, starvation, and societal collapse.

Let's take a look at consequences for some of the more benign ideas out there.

Lets say medicine, pharmaceuticals, dental care, and things like therapeutic massage, chiropractics, and physiotherapy are all included under a new Universal Care package, something I would love to see not only in the US, but in Canada. Sounds great, and theoretically, all that money that can stay with those who need it most would likely get spent, meaning people have more with which to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves.

That would mean a catastrophic disruption for insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and probably doctors, too. Would it be better in the medium to long-term? I think most likely. Would those industries most affected probably lose a lot of money and fire a lot of people? Probably.

The same can be said of nationalising a vehicle or house insurance plan, or any kind of insurance at all. I think it might make a great deal of sense, as many of these things are either requirements of life in Western society, or are legally required in some cases, and the free market has shown itself to be free to charge as much as they can justify. And yet, my feeling is that there would be monetary and job losses the moment such an idea is put into play.

So taking these relatively small, incremental changes as example, think about the money and lives lost should these kind of societal changes happen haphazardly, let alone should someone get the bright idea to do a "blank slate" approach.

That is why I think it's critical to use the mechanisms in place today to create the change needed. Even through those mechanisms, the changes sought could cause a lot of disruption for a lot of people. This needs to be done carefully.

Is it worth it to do, to transform the society of today into a model with far fewer billionaires (perhaps far fewer millionaires, too), but where everyone can work towards that six-figure salary, where even those who haven't the ability to climb that ladder don't have to worry about healthcare, food, and the necessities of life? I think so.

But let's be grounded and realistic, and consider the consequences. Let's choose our way carefully as the sun shines, and not run blindly through a forest, at night.

-CK