| MDMAlliance said:
How would one manage to make an economy and society where something like that would exist, though? The amount of resources you would need would be high, and a type of authoritarian society (maybe even totalitarian) would be needed to create conditions for this kind of society, which is inherently non-democractic. Also, who would determine what is actually more valuable between harder or smarter work, if both are equally beneficial? There are many questions on how you would make this kind of "democracy" work. There is also a question of the politics themselves, as they can have many indirect consequences on the economy and the "economic equality" of the state. |
You seem to confuse "people being rewarded based on their contribution" with "people being given gifts based on their contribution". What I'm talking about is a society where those who contribute more get more money as a general rule. Not some great judgment system where a person's worth is determined by some sort of panel or authority, but where society does it automatically, through ordinary economic processes.
For you see, the whole capitalist vs communist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a properly-created system to bring the best of both sides, by doing things like utilising market forces to achieve better equality. I've even got a few ideas on that front as a specific starting point, although they're too detailed to put here, and a quick summary wouldn't do them justice.
Beyond that, there are features of modern democracies that are rather outdated. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed a large portion of the political system that worked well 100 years ago - the result is a combination of corruption and populism. 100 years ago, people became politicians to make a difference - it's as much about public exposure as anything else now, thanks to TV. There are more, but this isn't really the place for an essay.
Nice job ignoring the actual point of my post, though.
