BofA ...there are too many houses, knock 'em down! - Page 4 - Theology Online

1PeaceMaker · August 1st, 2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Persephone66

And when they don't share willingly?

Then they get a reputation for being stingy and might not get what they ask for if they start a project, etc.

I'm talking about something called the gifting economy, and it's always existed. Sometimes it's so huge it supports an entire community, but usually we gift each other in many small ways.

If we are smart givers, we give on the basis of 2 things, need and worthiness. Wouldn't you be happy to give an honorably discharged veteran something, for example? What about someone who is known for fixing up computers that were being thrown out and giving them to school children or startup companies short on cash?

There will always be money. The difference in a goal oriented community is that everyone wants to give towards the goals of supplying the common essentials. In so doing, the cost of the essentials goes way down, and it still leaves open the possibility of doing regular commerce without it interfering with the necessities of life. Although there could be many who choose a moneyless existence with no problems, and there are already people doing that. It does not make them lazy anymore than the smart business man who learns to make money on a 4 hour work week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Persephone66

Tell me, in this system, is there any incentive for one to work harder or more than another? Is there any incentive for one to be more educated or skilled than another?

Sure. I'm a stay at home mother. I work for free. I work very hard. I work more than my children, which is perfectly fine with me. I'm not paid. I literally give my work away. It's not a "sacrifice" unless you are talking about convenience, but then again, I would work hard at being a medical missionary if I hadn't become a mother, anyway. So I was planning to have a life of hard work and giving. Getting rich wasn't on my to-do list.

My kids talk enthusiastically often of wanting to support us in our efforts when we are older. We are building a permaculture food forest on our few acres. They are so into it, they already keep their own patches of food, which they take great pride in. They want to grow food to feed others and take care of us when we grow old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Persephone66

Most everything I own I worked for and worked pretty hard to get it. That being said, I may be a bit unwilling to share with others that do not work as hard.

I think you are a generous person, although I'm just guessing. Based on your posts and the reality that a large percentage of people love giving. Lots of us want to give, we just get caught up in standard bearing and forget what makes life juicy and fun.

In fact, there are so many people who would love being givers, we may just find that it won't hurt us if you individually don't give. But I promise you will be missing the action if you don't. There are so many opportunities just beckoning!

PureX · August 1st, 2011, 12:29 PM

I think what we need in the United States is to redefine what commerce would be in a healthy society, and what it could not be allowed to become so that such a society could remain healthy. As it stands, commerce is defined essentially as economic Darwinism. Commercial interaction among human beings is currently dominated by an "every man for himself" motive, with the ultimate intent of everyone involved trying to take as much wealth as possible away from everyone else involved. It's essentially economic warfare, with exploitation as the ideal mechanism to gaining that desired end. It pits businesses against each other, and against the society in which they seeks to operate. And this is very unhealthy, as we are seeing.

We could, however, choose to redefine "commerce" so that it becomes a form of human interaction with the desired goal of advancing the well-being of everyone involved in the commercial activity. Instead of the participants all trying to screw each other out of the wealth, they could be trying to conduct their trades in such a way that everyone benefits each according to what they contribute. And our laws governing commercial interaction could then reflect this new definition. All it would take is the willingness to recognize the damage that a greed-motivated economic system does to a society, and the courage to change it for the better.

chrysostom · August 1st, 2011, 12:36 PM

instead of redefining commerce why don't we regulate it?

make everyone go to the state for approval before they make any changes
and
we should also make everyone promise to be nice

1PeaceMaker · August 1st, 2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureX

I think what we need in the United States is to redefine what commerce would be in a healthy society, and what it could not be allowed to become so that such a society could remain healthy. As it stands, commerce is defined essentially as economic Darwinism. Commercial interaction among human beings is currently dominated by an "every man for himself" motive, with the ultimate intent of everyone involved trying to take as much wealth as possible away from everyone else involved. It's essentially economic warfare, with exploitation as the ideal mechanism to gaining that desired end. It pits businesses against each other, and against the society in which they seeks to operate. And this is very unhealthy, as we are seeing.

Those are great ideas.

Alternatively, you could work on poverty solutions on an individual, local level. By building community, as Zoo pointed out, you magnify your power, which can be converted into reaching more people and recruiting more, and so on.

Protectionism is a forgotten yet powerful concept.

I would like to see communities taking it on themselves to provide their own food, even if it takes a lot of work. That's exactly what the community needs, lots of productive, purposeful work.

Same thing could be done by communities for fuel. There could be a basic fuel-for-transportation program. Alaska pays it's people for the oil they get from the ground. What if a society made it's fuel locally and a certain rationed amount was free? I think it would be better than paying them, since they will spend that much in guzzling fuel, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureX

We could, however, choose to redefine "commerce" so that it becomes a form of human interaction with the desired goal of advancing the well-being of everyone involved in the commercial activity. Instead of the participants all trying to screw each other out of the wealth, they could be trying to conduct their trades in such a way that everyone benefits each according to what they contribute. And our laws governing commercial interaction could then reflect this new definition. All it would take is the willingness to recognize the damage that a greed-motivated economic system does to a society, and the courage to change it for the better.

We are on the same page. We need to be goal oriented, not profit oriented. Society can learn and change.