American Justice Party Platform

r ranson wrote:There may be truly lazy humans in this world.  Humans that have no desire to work or do anything productive.  I have yet to meet one of these humans.  I've met people who appear this way, but given a change of situation, are actually more productive than people who are raised in an ideal situation.

Oh I have, about 7000 of them and all at one location: a shipyard.

In fact it was actually quite sickening, good people who were well compensated, could go anywhere they wanted in a huge corporation (90,000 employees) and yet would deliberately take menial jobs where they could do the least amount of work. They had all the opportunity a person could have in a career, yet squandered it because they were allowed to live out that life as Peter describes. How? The Union would back them up and their do-nothing lifestyle.

Sadly when I worked on the railroad it was not much better...again, a Union shop. One guy sold his tools because he was going to retire...which was 3 years away. How can a man work as a mechanic without tools?

In Moldova, an entire country proves this platform would never work. In 1992 they tried it when they broke off from the USSR and it failed miserably; they are in abject poverty because of all the reasons Peter cites.

Peter VanDerWal

Some people have their chosen occupation as the defining factor on who they are and even to them that's all they are.  Our society in North America seems to revel in this notion.  The question of what do you do for a living? or what do you do? are common ways to engage when meeting someone.  Perhaps it's tied into the protestant work ethic that the Puritans brought over?  At any rate, we are not our jobs, at least not when we are not working, and thus should we not, perhaps, also be defined by the other things we do?  Despite being a welder on the railway for work, I am also a permacultural horticulturalist, a mountain climber, a cyclist, a trail builder, a swimmer, a natural builder, a teacher, an active volunteer in many community groups, et cetera.   I think that some people are so tied into the work they do at their 'Job' that it owns them, and it does define them, but for many that is not the case.  For 8 years I worked with mentally challenged adults, but I did not feel any more than I do now that this occupation defined who I was or what my friends thought of me.  My friends know me for all of these other things that I do, as they stay with me while a job can be more transient.

The point that I'm getting to is that tribal cultures have a great deal of leisure time in which to engage in social community building and other things that they enjoy in life, and so when I read this quote from Peter VanDerWal, I have to comment:

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.

I disagree.  We, in our culture, do not value things the same way that they do, so we only give value to work that earns money.  This is one of the reasons that cleaning the toilet and scrubbing the floors, done by unpaid housewives for the most part, is often not considered work, but it certainly is.  We, in our culture, also do not place high value on listening, or on building relationships, or on caring for our population in a deep, personal, and meaningful way.  We would rather pay professionals to do the latter, and our relational situations are more often than not wrought with dysfunction.  These people put effort as a matter of cultural norm, not trying to toil at it to get it done, and as such are reward through their efforts with a culture of moral and ethical integrity.  If you visit with such tribal people you would see that their social bonds are much stronger than ours, that they care deeply about one another in ways that our society of fragmented nuclear families and isolated individuals doesn't even dream to aspire to.

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?

Because they place value in it.  No matter if they are working on something that you might consider a job, or they are putting effort into something that you don't feel is work, they are engaging in things that they put value in.  What is money, if not something that we have created to symbolize and exchange for things we value? (or in our case, it is often what we think we value because we bought the advertisers spiel.)  You would also see upon visiting such cultures that they use tools daily, and these tools are works of art, not because they wasted a bunch of time being lazy,, sitting around carving patterns and figures into their tools!  Not at all.  Because they value their few possessions and take pride in quality of workmanship for efficiency of use, and also place a high value on making things beautiful.  That's why.  All of these things take time and energy and effort... Work, in other words, but they do not have jobs like you or I do, so it is useless, or impossible to compare our lifestyles to theirs.  We have to understand what is valuable to them, and what is valuable to us, and then make comparisons.  Otherwise these cultures do not and in fact can not equate; not at all.  The live in a totally different paradigm.    

without training and encouragement, without NEED, most humans will choose to play rather than work.

If a society values play more than work, and it can get away with doing so while still having it's needs met fully, then all the power to them.  I'm not sure what the contention is that you have with such a life, Peter?

Rather than trying to emulate that state of indigenous bliss, are you suggesting that we must work our butts off for the majority of our waking day to make money in exchange for the supposed necessities that our society imposes on us, necessities that are most often planned to be disposable, creating a waste stream that we largely ignore, in houses that are much too large and are often nearly impossible to deal with ecologically?  I'd rather take the permaculture approach to look at natural systems, including indigenous cultures, to figure out ways that I can incorporate more of their lifestyle into my own so that I have more time and space to do the things that I would like to define me more than my job(s).

Rather than capitalism which seems to be often co-opted by the greedy and the power hungry, or communism, be it under the terms of Marx or under some nation state autocrat's centralized whim, I would consider heading quite far towards the localized communitarian principals that are still living as examples in these pristine cultures, while still retaining our technological/scientific processes albeit in a much more permacultural/life enhancing way.  Most of what is outlined in this thread's original post are, in my way of thinking, embraced by tribal cultures as a matter of course, and these are actually very desirable things that, if embraced without the overwhelming burden of our fears of the communist threat, would boost our own society's potential toward living a healthy and more productive life at home and at work.  

A tribal child engages in most if not all tasks with his parents and other adults, and as such has a stronger understanding of what work is than the average adult person in western Culture who is often grinding away at a single task, in a tedious manner in order to make money.  Inherent in doing things with there elders, a tribal child understands many things about the real world that most adults in our world would fail to grasp without training.   This include such things that we consider to be the realm of the well studied, like the fluid dynamics of physics through his or her ability to use a boat up and down a river, or the work of counseling which is an inherent part of their broad social language.  Also included is the (to us) difficult tasks of making fire without matches, to thatching a roof so that it can withstand heavy jungle rains, to transplanting layered cuttings on the forest trails when gathering edible plants... these types of things that these children do, that are inherent in their cultural knowledge base, are skills that we feel the need to gain education for if we are so inclined to want to do them expertly.  They do it with their time and energy, as part of the day to day activities that are not even considered at all as any kind of toil, but because you do not see them as putting much effort into it, you do not value their work.

We in the dominant culture tend to take the very few things that we think we know about a distant culture and create a mythological world based primarily, and quite unfortunately, on our own cultural parameters and fail to grasp the many divergences that are inherent in such extremely different systems of thinking and doing.  I think that this is the case in your assessment of their work.      

A deeper look into cultural anthropology might change your mind.

r ranson wrote:[
The Yanomami tribe was studied extensively by Nepolian Changnon and is often touted as one of the last tribes to encounter the modern world.  We studied this extensively in university.

I admit that I have not extensively studied the Yanomami, in fact my knowledge of rainforest tribes (and it might have been a different tribe) comes entirely from watching TV shows about them, where they seem to spend a great deal of time doing not much of anything, but perhaps that was all the cameraman wanted to portray.

If this was a natural human tendency, then we wouldn't have moved beyond subsistence living.  We wouldn't have great works of art and culture.

The Yanomami seem to be close to your ideal society.  They all have a similar amount of wealth, none of them are exploiting the 'workers'.  Tell me, what "great works of art and culture" have they developed?

Could it be that those things come mainly (if not exclusively) from capitalist(or similar) societies?  Societies where great artists can practice their trade because they have wealthy sponsors?

Can you point to a single example of a great work of art, or culture, that came from a society that did NOT have both wealthy and poor people?  A society where everyone has equal wealth and everything was provided for the individual?

Roberto pokachinni wrote:Peter VanDerWal

Some people have their chosen occupation as the defining factor on who they are and even to them that's all they are.  Our society in North America seems to revel in this notion.  The question of what do you do for a living? or what do you do? are common ways to engage when meeting someone.  Perhaps it's tied into the protestant work ethic that the Puritans brought over?  At any rate, we are not our jobs, at least not when we are not working, and thus should we not, perhaps, also be defined by the other things we do?  Despite being a welder on the railway for work, I am also a permacultural horticulturalist, a mountain climber, a cyclist, a trail builder, a swimmer, a natural builder, a teacher, an active volunteer in many community groups, et cetera.   I think that some people are so tied into the work they do at their 'Job' that it owns them, and it does define them, but for many that is not the case.  For 8 years I worked with mentally challenged adults, but I did not feel any more than I do now that this occupation defined who I was or what my friends thought of me.  My friends know me for all of these other things that I do, as they stay with me while a job can be more transient.

I have worked in many different countries around the world.  I have volunteered to help rebuild a medical center in Haiti after the big earthquake a few years back, I have helped build houses for newlyweds in the Azores, as well as worked for habitat for humanity.  IN each of these cases, the people that benefited from these works were right there beside me helping to build.

In my experience people (even very poor people) that have to work for what they have appreciate it and take care of it, whereas people that are given handouts for free typically do not.  It cost them nothing so they put no value in it.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't think that people should be simply given the basic necessities, rather they should be given the opportunity to WORK for those necessities in some meaningful way that benefits themselves and/or society.

I don't believe that if they are simply given the necessities that many will chose for themselves to work in any meaningful way.  My life experiences, and those of several others on this thread, seem to bear this out.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
A society where everyone has equal wealth and everything was provided for the individual?

Is anyone here actually talking about everything being provided for the individual?  I thought we were talking about a society which provides the necessities of life to all people, not "everything."

Maybe I'm still confused about what is being discussed...


Here's an example of a great work of art made by an egalitarian society: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

Travis - in my opinion, that only tells you that they don't want to do that kind of work. They likely don't value it. In my experience, in the US, people aren't allowed much control in their work environment. They are micro-managed. This doesn't allow them to take ownership of their work, hence the disconnect. To be able to tell if they were/are lazy, one would have to examine the rest of their life. A lot of people have a day job they don't care about, but are passionate and active in their home/personal life. They aren't lazy, they just don't care about their day job.

So much of life is work, having children is work, cooking meals is work, etc. People regularly choose to engage in these activities. I would think that this would be obvious to permaculturists, we always seem to be doing a lot more than we have to. I don't have to grow my own food or cook everything from scratch. I could simply pay people to do these things.

What I'm hearing a lot is that people don't like to do things they don't value and/or enjoy without other compensation, that seems fairly obvious to me. It seems to me the trick is finding people to do the things they value, and the things that most people don't want to do, but need doing should be split among groups instead of hoisted on a few individuals.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:they should be given the opportunity to WORK for those necessities in some meaningful way that benefits themselves and/or society.

To me it sounds more like you're saying they should work for those necessities or die.  Not what I would call "being given an opportunity"  more like being forced on pain of death.

Who gets to decide what is "meaningful" work?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:A society where everyone has equal wealth and everything was provided for the individual?

Is anyone here actually talking about everything being provided for the individual?  I thought we were talking about a society which provides the necessities of life to all people, not "everything."

Ok fine, pick a society that meets your ideal and describe the society and it's great works of art and culture.

As for the Lascaux Cave Paintings we nothing nothing about the society that created them, assuming it was Egalitarian seems a bit presumptuous, in fact I'd be willing to bet that the person or people that created those paintings had no such claims/aspirations about their society.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:

As for the Lascaux Cave Paintings we nothing nothing about the society that created them, assuming it was Egalitarian seems a bit presumptuous, in fact I'd be willing to bet that the person or people that created those paintings had no such claims/aspirations about their society.

Anthropologists do know about Paleolithic societies, as they exist to this day (though most are being driven extinct).

Hi Peter:  My first paragraph addresses art.  I underlined the part (culture) that is addressed in my second paragraph:  

Can you point to a single example of a great work of art, or culture, that came from a society that did NOT have both wealthy and poor people?  A society where everyone has equal wealth and everything was provided for the individual?

 I don't know the specifics of the particular societies of long ago that created them, but the stone age work that is displayed in the caves of South West Europe, and those in Australia would both, in my mind, and the mind of many in the art world, be great works of art.  So much so, that in my cultural homeland, they have created a Unesco world heritage site at Lascaux, in France. By studying the artwork one can find that they were using many advanced techniques, including (but not limited to) combining minerals and oils to make long lasting pigments, utilizing shading and the shape of the stone walls to create depth and perspective, having animals arise out of cracks in the wall, planning to have the art span around the full curve of a ceiling, overlaying creatures over top of one another, repeating a series of geometric symbols found over thousands of Km and spanning thousands of years, et cetera.  By animal oil and wick lamp light, these realistic images of animals come even more to life, and the symbols show abstract thought patterns displayed over time and space that show the potential to be the precursors to written language which did not develop for thousands of years afterwards.  Also, most, if not all, of these paintings and etchings predate large scale agriculture and urban societies by thousands of years (some caves are over 40,000 years old).  In Australia some of the paintings are as old, and we have the great benefit of an existing cultural heritage that still understands the images.

I consider all cultures great, if they are functioning healthily in a regenerative way within their local environment.


The art of the Australian Aborigines is touched on in this brief video, the main gist is that the art is a way of documenting history, but it takes the right interpretation (like with the hieroglyphics) to make proper sense of it:  

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:

As for the Lascaux Cave Paintings we nothing nothing about the society that created them, assuming it was Egalitarian seems a bit presumptuous, in fact I'd be willing to bet that the person or people that created those paintings had no such claims/aspirations about their society.

Anthropologists do know about Paleolithic societies, as they exist to this day (though most are being driven extinct).

So you're saying that Anthropologist know that the Lascaux Cave Paintings were created by an Egalitarian society?  

I'd always understood that the common belief was that prehistoric man probably practiced a Dominance Hierarchy, where the alpha male knew that everyone else was inferior to him, and that everyone else knew that there were those that we superior to them and those that were inferior, but non were exactly "equal" them.
That sounds like the exact opposite of an Egalitarian society to me.  

Do you have any references where they prove, or even posit, that primitive man practiced Egalitarianism?

As for the Lascaux Cave Paintings we nothing nothing about the society that created them, assuming it was Egalitarian seems a bit presumptuous, in fact I'd be willing to bet that the person or people that created those paintings had no such claims/aspirations about their society.

 Whether you would be willing to bet something does not make your assumption a fact either.  Considering that you don't seem to have a grasp of existing egalitarian cultures, I'd be willing to bet strongly against any assumptions/presumptions that you are making about the culture of these artists.  By studying the art, all experts have come to the understanding that these ancient peoples created extremely complex works, that were planned out, and took many days, up on scaffolding to fabricate.  To do this with no aspirations, as you have decided they must have, is completely ridiculous, in my opinion.

We are getting off the subject again (my fault as much as anyones)

Primitive societies did not take from those that had things and give them to those that didn't.

People were not given the basic necessities.  If they wanted food and shelter they either had to provide it themselves or share in the communal work that provided them.  If they did not contribute, they were kicked out and left to die, or survive on their own.

Primitive societies work exactly the same basic way that I'm proposing.  People shouldn't be given handouts by the government. They should be provided the opportunity to provide for themselves, just like what happens in primitive societies.

I'd always understood that the common belief was that prehistoric man probably practiced a Dominance Hierarchy, where the alpha male knew that everyone else was inferior to him, and that everyone else knew that there were those that we superior to them and those that were inferior, but non were exactly "equal" them.  

 The older views of how we all lived have been eclipsed by later findings and interpretations, from what I understood in my Anthropology classes, and later studies.  There is no evidence that these cave paintings existed in a male dominated society.  None.  Considering the near absence of weapons and hunters amongst literally thousands of animals would lead me (and all more recent interpretations) to believe that these were not hunting images.  We may have broke away from the rest of the primates through male dominance but, again, there is not much proof of that, except that we butchered, cooked, and ate other primates, and all that happened several hundred thousand to a million (or a whole lot more) years before these paintings were made, which is actually pretty recent in human history.  

There is plenty of evidence that the vast majority of primitive (stone age tool user) cultures that existed at the time of us Europeans contacting them with our metal and so called advanced societies and such, were egalitarian in nature, even with male chiefdoms, they still had matriarchal lineages and basic egalitarian structures.  By studying the work of anthropologists who visited these peoples, even the warlike ones, we find that the cultures had leaders but these were based on skill and wisdom and leadership qualities, not on dominance and power struggles.  It is widely believed that all cultures had an even stronger fraternal/maternal basis at one period of time, but that warfare and male dominance developed through land disputes as our population expanded beyond the capacity for long term hunting in smaller tribal boundary areas.  That is, from my understanding, the commonly held modern belief.  Also, many people believe that periodic warfare was used by many egalitarian societies in order to capture new blood/genetics to marry into the tribe, but their culture in general was not war based on a day to day basis, or even an annual one, despite this element that was observed in some cultures.

This is not to say that war like cultures did not exist, but that they were more of an exception than the rule.  I grew up in an area where war was a part of the culture, but even there, it might be decades or centuries between any serious skirmish, while trade alliances and intermarriages were more common.  All of these cultures were matrilineal in descent patterns, and it often said in that region, that behind every male in the male dominated chiefdom council stood a woman guiding his decisions.  

As you point out, it is impossible to know what happened 20,000 years ago, and what those cultures were like, but I would think that the best guesses come from our observations of existing cultures who use the same tools.  

Roberto pokachinni wrote: Considering that you don't seem to have a grasp of existing egalitarian cultures,

You're right, I have no grasp of "existing egalitarian cultures".   Which countries are currently practicing this form of government?  if not countries which societies?

I'm not being facetious here.  I seriously want to learn.  This thread has been educational for me.
However, I still believe that freeloaders are bad for society and I can post some links that generally prove it.

You're right, I have no grasp of "existing egalitarian cultures".   Which countries are currently practicing this form of government?  if not countries which societies?

I'm not being facetious here.  I seriously want to learn.

Nation states tend not to develop egalitarian societies.  The closest in the modern situation is probably Sweden, but I may be wrong.  Perhaps Bhutan is a better example?  The cultures (which I hesitate to call primitive) that I am referring to are in the jungles of Amazonia, or South East Asia.  There are some in the area known as Oceana in the South Pacific, and others in the Indian Ocean, and still others in remote and especially northern areas of what is known as Russia or Siberia.  If you go to your library and ask your librarian to direct you to the cultural anthropology section you will find some of what you need there or the librarian will be able to help you through inter library loan.

I highly suggest the work of Wade Davis.  He is an ethno-botanist as well as an ethnographer.  His book One River (which is all about the Amazonian tribes and the history of contact) is probably the best experience based anthropology/auto biography that I have read.  The only caveat to his work is that his research was primarily entho-botany with a further focus on hallucinogenic plants and the cultural uses of them.  If that's not your cup of tea (pardon the pun), then skip those parts as you delve into other aspects of the cultures which are detailed quite nicely for the lay person in this fascinating read.      

What does primitive societies have to do with taking the greatest society ever known on Earth and transforming it to one of the worst, for the benefit of the homeless or the insane. In communist, fascist and some socialist countries these people were disposed of...... for the "good of the people".

This lecture by Toby Hemenway is a little off-topic but does discuss some of the differences between civilized cultures and non-civilized ones (using the word "civilized" in its anthropological, not common, meaning): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo&t=226s

I would call myself a left socialist who accepts capitalism, but not the ' winner takes all form " of capitalism.
But I always enjoy recalling Margaret Thatchers statement
"the trouble with socialism, eventually you run out of somebodies else's money"

John Duda - what society are you referring to as "the greatest society ever known on Earth"? Here in the US and much of Europe, we are battling a fascist dystopia.

A big issue I have with country's that tried some version of communism or socialism, is that they still allow capitalists to define the metrics of success, always more growth, more stuff. This is not healthy or sustainable. How many widgets are produced is irrelevant. The more important question is, do we need those widgets? What is the production of those widgets really costing us, in terms of personal happiness, destruction of the planet, etc. I'm interested in a post-consumer, post-industrial world, not keeping up with the Joneses, in either a capitalist or communist society.

I have probably dealt with 1500 employees or so, in my working career. About 600 of those were mine, meaning that I was responsible for choosing what they do and paying them. Often I was in charge of the others , but  I didn't bear the financial risk associated .

I know without a doubt that some people are naturally driven to accomplish things and require no prodding. They may require direction or education, but have a natural tendency to want to do something productive. I always like to put someone who is a natural worker, in charge of others. Most take well to this, and most of the Lesser worker except that this person is in charge of them and they know why.

I have met many others who would be happy to hide in a corner, making just enough noise that it sounds like they're getting something done. In my experience these types only accomplish something where there's a strict hierarchy and coercion. The only coercion we're allowed to use here, is the threat of firing. If we were building a pyramid for the Egyptians, I would assign a brutal taskmaster to this bunch.

I don't feel that it is my responsibility to provide these people with anything. Should we ever develop a government so bad that these people have the upper hand, I would support the removal of that government through violent means. And it wouldn't matter to me if this government where democratically elected. I'm not a big fan of universal suffrage. If people aren't part of production, I don't think they should have a say in what happens with the money.

I think that extrapolating from a specific job to a person as a whole is unfounded. Different people work better in different environments with different kinds of tasks. Maybe these people are nurturers and not laborers, and cannot see the point in the work. I've come across people who have just been so beaten down that they no longer will do anymore than is asked of them. They don't see the payoff, they are saving that energy for something else. Goodness knows I cannot work in a micro-managed environment. Give me a task and I will get it done, tell me how I must do it and we have a problem. particularly if it's a bad way to do something.

I am well aware how difficult it can be to work with people who don't want to do what you want them to do, I have children. But this doesn't mean they aren't capable, they just haven't found their thing.

My son recently did some temp work in a warehouse that supplies Tesla. When I mentioned this to some friends, all I heard was "that's exciting", "Tesla is doing great things". Whether or not you think that's true isn't really the point, but when he came home after his first day his response was "how do people do this, this is soul sucking work". I said some people like mindless work, he most assuredly does not. He didn't last long.

Here in the US and much of Europe, we are battling a fascist dystopia.  

I would add that the dystopia in question is very much based on an extreme capitalist model , where nihilistic and totalitarian tendencies have led it astray (even if it's wielded from within a totalitarian 'communist' country like China).  This of course is not limited to the west as the Chinese example shows, but one can look at the production of the billionaires in all Asian nations, as well as those elsewhere in the world, and see that they are exploiting people left right and center, and widening the income gap at every turn.  This involves the entire world including so called third world countries.  With it's globalized trade networks, indentured slave laborers, and convenient dictators looking the other way or lining their own pockets so the rich of other nations can exploit their countries and their people.  And as for the west and the globalized mass media, most or all of this is condoned or conveniently ignored unless the dictator's own policies either step on the trade networks/exploitation, or he himself goes too rogue in his own abuses to no longer be ignored.  

I'm interested in a post-consumer, post-industrial world, not keeping up with the Joneses, in either a capitalist or communist society.

I have no problem with capitalism, I have a problem with exploitation.  I believe that this is the end goal of permaculture in a way, as we can not care for either the Earth or the People if we are exploiting them.  

What does primitive societies have to do with taking the greatest society ever known on Earth and transforming it to one of the worst, for the benefit of the homeless or the insane. In communist, fascist and some socialist countries these people were disposed of...... for the "good of the people".  

 Interesting that you are not considering that the U.S. was founded on genocide/stolen land.  As far as hunter gatherer societies are concerned, the tangent developed from the concept of lazy being applied to those who are not 'working' in the traditional western sense of having a defined day to day job, and these hunter gatherer people were given as an example; then the merits of their societies were being discussed.  I think it is highly valuable to have that discussion in this thread, particularly in a permacultural forum, since goal (of creating a political party that is socially oriented) is to create a socio-economic model that make sense, so we can create a better society.  To not look at the potential of this system (the egalitarian village model), and only focus on a skewed and exploited dichotomy between communism and capitalism, is to ignore the permacultural principal to consider Nature as our teacher-The egalitarian gatherer/hunter society is how we evolved in deep connection to the Earth.  We wont find our way out of this mess by reinventing the wheel of the last two hundred years of Nationalism and exploring that skewed dichotomy to the point of pulling our hair out.  Other models exist, and proven to be sustainable, and we can scale them up, if we do so thoughtfully with good design, even into a transformed urban setting; and I believe that is the goal of Permaculture. That's the way I see it, anyway.    

As a small business owner with one employee, I just simply cannot grasp how this might be a good idea.

"all companies will be restructured so that all workers in a company own
equal shares in the company. Therefore, they will have income from shares as well as
hourly pay. The companies will organize themselves into democratic councils of all
workers at the company. There will be no bosses or CEOs. Those who do not work do
not get to vote in the council. All company power will be weilded by the workers themselves."

It makes absolutely no sense. No one would want to start a business. I certainly would never have been motivated to study for years in my spare time to learn a particular skill, and then spend months and months of my spare unpaid time to use that skill to create a product, learn how to market said product, set up the infrastructure to deliver said product, if all that was going to happen was I would have to give away half my company the first time I decided I needed to hire someone to help me with paperwork.

It makes no sense at all. I have taken ALL the risk in my business. I have put thousands and thousands of uncompensated hours in getting it off the ground, not to mention all the additional thousands of uncompensated hours learning the skills I needed to do so.

If sales aren't going well, my employee gets a paycheck but I don't. If a new design doesn't do well, I've wasted my time and am not compensated for it. Why on EARTH would it even remotely make sense for my employee (who, by the way, is fabulous and paid very well for what she does) to have an equal share and say in something that *I* have created and built on my own, simply because I became successful enough to where I could not manage it on my own?

That's basically just punishing success. Literally, that's what it is. So a one-person business becomes successful and then suddenly it is forced to either stagnate or become a democratic system with equal profit sharing which completely nullifies the original vision of the business creator. A system like that would choke out innovation and stifle creativity. I have spent hours and hours and years of my time to create my business so that I could provide a better life for myself and my family. My business helps my low-income rural area in an economical sense, and provides an extremely flexible job for a stay-home mom who helps me with admin. I have a clear vision and direction for my business which has also been refreshing for my customers who need the products I am selling them.

I would never even bother setting something like that up if I wasn't able to keep the fruits of my labor or be one of multiple equal voices with a "say" in what happens.

Bethany Dutch - that's how you choose to start and structure your company. There are other ways, and I think that this speaks to that. Multiple people coming together and doing all those things together, and when hiring new people making sure that they contribute equally as well.

In earlier posts on this thread, I've seen people complain that employees are lazy. It seems unreasonable to expect employees to do more than is asked of them (be invested) and not give them some say. You and your employee seem satisfied with your arrangement and that's great. I assure you this is not typical. Again, issues with extrapolating from the specific to the general.

Roberto pokachinni - I would argue that you can't have modern capitalism without exploitation. I have no problem with trade, but modern economies are so far from a simple exchange of goods and services. Most people don't make things, or doing much that is actually productive, particularly the wealthy. They are little more than gamblers.

However, I still believe that freeloaders are bad for society and I can post some links that generally prove it.

People shouldn't be given handouts by the government. They should be provided the opportunity to provide for themselves, just like what happens in primitive societies.

 Interestingly Peter, I tend to agree with much of what you are saying in this regard.  People are better off if they are engaged in their income, and they do indeed place higher value in what they have if they feel that they have somehow earned it.  In the past, I worked with some barely functioning people who were highly disabled, but I believe that they gained reward by being able to help themselves to the best of their ability.  Why should I scrub him down if he can do it?  This is known as self regulation, and people thrive on a level of autonomy if it gives them even the smallest reward.  There is a billion dollar industry based on 'self help' and I think the reason is clear; we benefit the most when we take charge of our situation.  An addict on the street, however, is being driven by a drug, not the other way around, and it is only through a moment of clarity that an addict can decided to make a break for it.  Another person or a program or an institution can not make this decision for him/her.  The person has to make the decision, and own it, and work on it, and make it happen.  They have to seek the help (and they need it; addiction is a proven disease in the mind), and they have to do the work (and it is not easy work), to get straight and stay there.  I have no problem with those thoughts that you have about people being engaged in their lives and what they are given.  But people do need help, and they do need, sometimes, for this to be freely given(without having to earn it first), so that they can see that the world is not a hostile place, and that their is a possibility of a way to get out of the state of mind or state of life that they have spiraled down into so deeply that they are in an abyss.  Not everyone has been able to pull themselves out of this spiral the way that you did.  Kudos for you for being able to, but I don't think that your situation is the norm, and that is not because people inherently like to be sitting with their hand out.  That, in my opinion, is learned behavior.  It is a problem of nurture (or a complete lack of it being properly administered) over nature.  

Which leads me to the next paragraph:    

The concept that people are inherently lazy, however, I completely disagree with despite poignant examples that have been given by Travis and Dale.  I disagree because I think that this laziness is more learned behavior in a society that controls them too much, and steers them to go against their natural tendencies.  Our society enables people to barely succeed and in some cases even struggle to feel a measure of success, when they could be so much more productive if they followed their hearts a little more instead of following what their minds have been filled with.  "Get a job!"  Not: "Follow your own path."   The education systems in our cultures tend to be based on the concept of filling minds with knowledge that creates a stagnant monotonized work force, instead of developing exploring ones that create a culture of expanding wisdom and innovation.  It's remarkable that so much inventiveness actually exists in this culture considering it's many lacking conditions.  The culture that defines us is based on production, instead of quality of life; period.  Until that changes, we will be going against human nature.  There are many symptoms that result from such removals of value from the human experience, and placing all the values in the 'real world' as you put it.  The sad truth is that the American Dream or as John Duda stated:  'the greatest  society ever known on Earth' is pretty much at the forefront of this present state of mind/being/culture, and until that culture changes, whether it is initiated by a political movement or a social one, we are bound to be trapped by it's many dystopian tending corridors, rather than breaking out of the labyrinth into a new world of possibilities that enhance humanity and the natural world.    

Hi Stacy W.  

Roberto pokachinni - I would argue that you can't have modern capitalism without exploitation. I have no problem with trade, but modern economies are so far from a simple exchange of goods and services. Most people don't make things, or doing much that is actually productive, particularly the wealthy. They are little more than gamblers.

 Perhaps, but I have worked for other people (as a landscaper or as a restaurant worker, for instance), who profited more than I, and I did not feel exploited by their actions at all; I enjoyed both my work and my level of pay.  The bosses respected their workers and the workers respected the bosses in these situations; in fact the bosses were working alongside of us.  Capitalism, as outlined as an entrepreneur who creates a company and makes a profit from it, is not inherently wrong, it's the exploitation factor and the poor work conditions that degenerates both the actual act of capitalism and the environment/people. I have had experiences in this regard as well.  I have also been self employed and worked for non-profits.  The stock ticking, gambling, non productive executive style capitalism, as well as the dictator sweat shop domineering capitalism (and other examples) are in a completely different model than what I am talking about.  The latter is elite hierarchical, nihilism, and totalitarian tendencies that take over the capitalist model, which I argue can be functional, productive, and healthy.   I think that we actually agree, because I think that we both see that the capitalist model that is dominating the planet is completely wrong and unsustainable, and I think that that is what you are speaking of here.  

We need to build "ladders" in our society to help people build their way up.   Our culture doesn't do this, so one in a million "wins the lottery" becomes rich and then puts down every one else. Meanwhile the people that do get rich spend their time making sure no one else has a chance.  Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm on the roof.  It's the political problem of inequality that harms us the most.
ttps://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/21/as-inequality-grows-so-does-the-political-influence-of-the-rich

The extremely powerful rich pretend to care about abortions and immigrants so they can keep their workers distracted about it and from their riches, slaving away.  This is a cultural problem.  Chris Rock said, "If the poor people in the country had any idea how rich the rich people are, they would run out and riot in the streets". In most of Europe, people do a good job for 40 hours. They actually get to raise their children, have hobbies, visit grandma, paint, garden, cook, etc.  They have health care, free education, and there are no giant ghettoes where poor people shoot each other and deal drugs all day long. The culture doesn't set up ladders that way.  The ladders are set up for good poison free food for everyone, health care, education and a good chance to prosper. The US used to be the country in which it was easiest for a poor person to have a prosperous life.  Now, nearly every country in Western Europe gives the workers a better chance than us, and they don't have to put  poison in their food to make it happen.

Everyone should work, but they should have a chance to try to work.  The workplace should not be a micromanaged hell hole for max cash and no health benefits. Although I am low income now, my job is way more pleasant and cooperative.  I grow much of my own food and medicine, and it's a much happier healthier lifestyle.   We need to change our culture from one of squeezing every drop of profit out of the little people to one of building positive healthy ladders for everyone.
John S
PDX OR

no giant ghettoes where poor people shoot each other and deal drugs all day long.

 while this might not be quite to the extreme or large of situations that it is in the U.S., the immigrant populations in places like France (for instance) are often in similar conditions or they will be soon.  Joblessness (and the resulting degeneration of culture that gives rise to crime/drugs) is inherent in this situation because of racist policies and employers (and a general state of mind that says that 'these people are taking our jobs') who create a system (even if they don't realize they are doing it) of selecting workers who are not an African or a Muslim or an Asian from the job line.  While the general population enjoys the benefits of a short work week and a given lifestyle where certain needs are met via the social network, the accessing of this as a poor immigrant is not always readily apparent.  The ladders that you are mentioning are not in place, in this regard.  I completely agree with the rest of your post, John, and even in this case, you are right that the extreme level of depravity and desperation that exists in the urban poor in the U.S. is quite unprecedented in the West.  I just felt the need to clarify the example that ghettoization of the poor and the discontent of being unemployed exists very powerfully in Europe as well.

Thanks for the clarification, Roberto.

I think that a lot of people don't realize that in the US, there are huge areas in poverty neighborhoods where police and ambulances won't go, ever.

When I went through Europe, like most Americans, I would look around and say, "Where do you hide your poor people?"   Their answer was, "These are our poor people!"  Everyone had a place, enough food, health care, and could get a job.  They invited me to play soccer with them.  

This would never happen in US big city poor neighborhoods.  Yes there is racism in Europe, and discrimination, but the contrast is shocking.  When I was young, most middle class people went to Europe.  Now only a few do. Partly because the politicians took away the ladder of education, so they're 100, ooo dollars in debt.  But I don't think the powers that be want Americans to see what else is possible.  They would lose some of their power over us.
John S
PDX OR

Stacy Witscher wrote:Travis - in my opinion, that only tells you that they don't want to do that kind of work. They likely don't value it.

To me this is kind of silly because whenever a ship was launched, they would love to eat the food, drink the drinks, and celebrate in the festivities of launching a battleship that took 4-7 years to build. They would celebrate in that, yet not want to "work" for it along the build.

But this is the issue; when a person responds with well founded principals like Peter, and others have, what happens is the question begins to turn around..."Well what is "work?" In the chaos of that question, it is mere subterfuge to simply get around the hard question being asked.

There is a saying that, "when you find what you love to do, you no longer work a day for the rest of your life." It is oh so true. I worked very hard for 23 years to be able to retire at age 42 years old. I made very intelligent decisions, plotting out my life at age 18 so I could be where I was at age 42. It is simply called planning and hard work, though two wives, could not see how living for May 27th 2016 made any sense in 205 and 2011.


In high school I took no study halls and extra classes so that in Senior Year all I had to take was English Class. The rest of the day I went to vocational school and learned to be a welder/diesel mechanic. Fellow students said it was not "fair". yes it was, they could have done the same thing but chose to do homework at school, or fool around in study hall. I made my school life harder so I could be better positioned 4 years later. It was completely fair!

So it was with ships, on a day to day basis it was hard, my work nearly costing me my life from an infection, yet by persevering at the work, a great ship was built (along with many others). That ship was the USS Zumwalt by the way. I stayed at the shipyard far longer then I wanted to, I hated it there, but I was a good welder and given critical areas to weld: the rudder, frame one (where the bow cuts the waterline) and the missile silos. I had the skills to build ships that defended a great country, a sense of duty kept me there as it should have.

Today I am retired, but I work harder at farming then I ever did at the shipyard, but consider myself retired still. I don't work, I do whatever I want to and answer to only a higher power.

But we all have 24 hours in a day, what we do with those hours is up to us.

But if an employee goes to work there is an expectation that the employee will accomplish x-amount for x-amount of compensation. Even if they think their wage is not enough, since they agreed to it by showing up, they are morally obligated to perform the tasks. If they do not, I will go one step farther than Peter in calling them lazy, I will say they are outright thieves. Taking something for nothing is theft.

without training and encouragement, without NEED, most humans will choose to play rather than work.

My background is in education, primarily elementary and early childhood education. A very important educational theory is that for children is that play is work. Children learn through playing. They learn through mirroring the adults around them. They learn and start to participate in jobs around the house when they are allowed and encouraged--but NOT forced--to work.

Yet, if they are never allowed to chose how or when or with what to help, and are always told to "go away" or "just go play with your toys while Mama does this" or "you need to clean the floor now!" or "stop doing that, we're going to piano practice now," they don't learn how to make their own decisions. They feel powerless and do not feel invested in helping their family and community survive and thrive.

Recently, NPR had some very fascinating articles about indigenous children in Guatemala. These are young children who anticipate what needs to be done, pay very good attention even when they don't have to, and chose to help. They do all of these things a whole lot more and better than children here in the US. Why do they excel at this? Because from a young age they were encouraged and allowed to help, and allowed to chose when and how to help. They are empowered.

A Lost Secret: How To Get Kids To Pay Attention
How To Get Your Kids To Do Chores (Without Resenting It)

Here in the States, children generally are not empowered. Rich kids are ferried from one activity to another, often without the choice of what activities they will participate in, or when. Poor kids generally feel disempowered about EVERYTHING. My husband grew up poor. His parents got kicked out of one rental after another and he was constantly uprooted, his toys and his friends and his community and security lost in every move. He was told he could do anything, but now HOW to do anything. He was hopeless. He was never able to fulfill his needs, nor knew how to do so.

One thing I have noticed is that: when someone cannot fulfill their needs, let alone their wants, their needs and wants get all confused. They get a meager paycheck. It's not enough to pay their bills, let alone buy enough groceries. But, they can buy their kid that toy they want. They'll be hungry either way, and they'll have their power turned off either way, so they might as well see a smile on their child's face when they give them a remote controlled car.

I was going to add this to my earlier post, but then my kids needed my help. So, I'll just post it here instead:

This needs and wants mix-up applies to more than just money. They feel powerless in most things. Why work hard if the paycheck isn't enough to pay the bills? Why not just "goof-off" at work and be happy, because working hard gets you nowhere? This is a deep-seated mindset that is terribly difficult to overcome. It's hard to realize all the times and ways that it affects you, especially if you don't know it's a mindset. You're just doing what every other worker and friend is doing, because there's really no other way. You feel powerless and unable to change your circumstances. Your friends are all spending money they don't have on things they don't need. It's "normal."

My husband still battles this mindset, and he even knows he has it. Most people don't think that deeply or have the education or help to spot it. We've been married almost 11 years, and together for 13. I still have to remind him that, no, we don't need to spend all that money on things we don't need--we can be home, working hard and enjoying our work and our time together. And, since I've been poor, too, now, and around him, I have to check myself a lot, too. It's HARD. It's a symptom of our society and our culture. It does not need to be thus. I think a much better funded education system would help a ton. I think making sure that children have their needs met NO MATTER WHAT their parents chose to do, is vitally important. I think it's important that people feel that they are able to work to make their lives better, and I think it's important to realize that there are lots of important kinds of work and art and culture. I think there is much value in learning how to darn a shirt or hand make a pair of shoes, or in arranging a garden in an aesthetic way. Art isn't just large monuments---there is much art in tribal clothing and woven baskets, in the little things we do every day to make our lives good.

I am not well studied enough in politics to be able to speak to which societal configuration will help people to realize the value in work, and to keep people from feeling powerless and worthless. (I'm thinking that making sure large corporations pay a LIVING wage, as well as allowing people to actually work enough hours to earn that wage.) I do know what I can do in raising my children to help them to see the value, meaning, joy and purpose in doing a good job in the nitty-gritty work (like sweeping the floor and chopping weeds and taking out compost), as well as in the "fun" things like music and art. These things also do not need to be separate. There can be singing while working and art in arranging cans on a grocery shelf well.

And, now my kids need my help. Got to go!

Roberto pokachinni wrote:
The concept that people are inherently lazy, however, I completely disagree with despite poignant examples that have been given by Travis and Dale.    

FWIW I never claimed that people, as a whole, are inherently lazy.   What I have said is that SOME people are lazy, and I don't think you can change that by telling them what their perfect job is.

Yes, maybe if we started by training them properly from infancy we could prevent this(I doubt it would work in all cases).  
However, I don't think there is any one 'perfect way' to train every child, and if there is I doubt anyone knows exactly what it is (although I'm sure many will claim to know).

Unfortunately we live in the real world.  Parents are not perfect (I don't think there are any 'perfect' parents), teachers aren't perfect, our education system is not perfect.  As a result, people, especially adults, are not perfect.  Most, I think, are far from perfect.

Trying to force an idealized "perfect" society on imperfect people seems doomed to fail.  Especially since nobody really knows what the "perfect" society is.  There are lots of people who believe they know, but they don't all agree and many believe in ideals that are the complete opposite of others.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to fix the problems with our society, but the OP's proposed solution won't fix our society, it will break it...badly.  There are numerous examples in recent times when people have tried to force their similar beliefs of the perfect society onto others, I can't think of a single example that did not fail badly, some are still limping along, but the people in those societies are far worse off now than they were when they were being "exploited by capitalists".

“Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
-Man is Black

I have been asked to look at this thread.   And I have not looked at it.  Instead, I would like to request that all people participating in this thread take a moment to think about how to best demonstrate the values of how to discuss difficult topics on this site.

A lot of staff are being directed to this thread now.   I think everybody should expect to see a lot of apple cores, deleted posts and probation posts soon.  Remember, moderation on this site is done by about 40 unpaid and untrained volunteers.   Your post needs to pass the inspection of all 40 people.

Hi Travis.  

To me this is kind of silly because whenever a ship was launched, they would love to eat the food, drink the drinks, and celebrate in the festivities of launching a battleship that took 4-7 years to build. They would celebrate in that, yet not want to "work" for it along the build.

 This joining in on the celebration doesn't mean that they somehow value their work or want to do that type of work.  You didn't even enjoy being there, but because you worked hard and properly as you were expected to do, you are more justified to think that you earned the celebration.  Everybody likes a party, even, and perhaps especially, freeloading idiots who have no ethical compunction!  They didn't earn it, but they don't give a crap.  

But this is the issue; when a person responds with well founded principals like Peter, and others have, what happens is the question begins to turn around..."Well what is "work?" In the chaos of that question, it is mere subterfuge to simply get around the hard question being asked.

I don't believe that is how it went down. The way I see it, Peter, for his part, made some good points and some very questionable ones, but they were lost of his own accord   Why should he not be called out for it?  

The validity of an idea does not somehow justify the chosen angle of presentation.    I value Peter's contributions, generally, but when he (like anyone else) writes something that makes no sense in my mind, I have to say something.  While I agree with some of what he said, as I stated a earlier today-but as I also inferred in that post-it's not black and white.  Sometimes giving someone a hand (without expecting a pay back) is necessary for them to pick themselves up.  I doubt that you would do the work you do as a volunteer if you really thought otherwise.  You may not be giving your money, but you give your time, and I equate that since you could use that time to work on something that could make you money, or you could be spending time with your wife and girls which you value highly, that you are choosing to give freely of yourself without worrying about the payback.  It's simply the right thing to do.  I understand that some people take advantage of the system; for handouts.  But that happens in all levels of this dysfunction that we call western society.  

Bureaucracies are often full of those types of people, for instance, but because they go to work everyday (like the guys in the shipyard) most other people - when thinking of them and the jobs they say they do - don't see the amount of time that they waste doing nothing and getting paid well for it. Peter made a sweeping statement about poor people in this regard. Not all poor people, but picking out poor people in the way he did, makes it seem like they are the only people who are entitled.  Then it was pointed out that there are lazy people in all levels of society, including people sitting in conference rooms, or managing stocks, for instance, making money for nothing.   Being lazy or trying to make the system work in a person's interest instead of the interest of the task at hand, is a way of living in this society that has somehow become normalized, but that doesn't make it the way that humans are in general.  Sure we are born flawed, nobody is perfect, but our culture has created monsters out of men, and in turn they have turned our culture into a monster.        

I don't think that people are inherently lazy, for instance.  You are proof that that is not the case.   You are anything but lazy.  Perhaps you had a decent upbringing with sound principles on how to plan your life years in advance when you were in grade school.  I'd hazard to guess that most of the kids in your school did not, and that most of the guys at the shipyard had really poor council on how to choose an occupation; all they knew was that they needed a job, and you might as well have a good paying one.  Sure they were idiots about it, but that proves nothing about people as a generalization.  My experience on the railroad is very similar to your's in the shipyard.  There are a few of us that do quality work, and there are the vast majority who are there solely for the paycheck and couldn't give a rat's behind about what kind of damage they are potentially doing by providing a crappy job or not doing there part almost daily.  The point that I made about this sort of thing is not that that is the state of mind that the majority of humans have; it's a matter of upbringing, it's a matter of their cultural environment, it's a matter of a mental paradigm.  It has nothing to do with human nature.  In my thinking, it's a distortion of human nature (It's like the most visibly extreme forms of capitalism being usurped by tyrants with no morality) that somehow has become the norm in certain circles of influence.  Nothing more.                

Edited for politeness. Sorry to all, and especially Peter, if there was any offense in my previous wording.