Workism - a New Socioeconomic System

Phransisku said:
We don't. People can informally make a gift. Legally, that good or cash continues to belong to the purchaser/owner.
Click to expand...

We don't.

Legally, that good or cash continues to belong to the purchaser/owner.

I don't see how these two statements are compatible...


So I 'give' cash to my daughter, lets say $10,000.

Can she spend it? Does she own the things that are purchased?

If she places a bet at the casino and wins another $10,000 is that hers?

If the purchased goods/winnings do still belong to me, you are stopping me gifting to another person. So if you cannot transfer legal ownership of cash, how do you stop someone from doing this?

Am I allowed to sell my possessions? Could I not just sell my car to my child then give them the cash back? or never physically transfer the cash in the first place?

At what value can I no longer transfer ownership to another person? Does a family photo count? How about a commissioned painting of my family?


I honestly can't think of an answer to these questions that doesn't involve a ridiculously over the top authoritarian government. For many people, myself included, this would be far from utopia regardless of the outcome.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Your system would prevent property owners from earning rent, your system would prevent heirs from earning rent on property passed to them, your system would prevent property owners from bequeathing their property to their heirs, instead it would be stolen by workers if none of the original owners are alive.
Click to expand...
This does not answer the questions you've quoted. If we are to continue on this game where I answer your questions while you don't answer mine, there's no point to go any further.

If I were to respond to your last post and raised questions, they would remain unanswered. It's not worth it.

Either you start addressing my comments or I won't address yours. It's your choice.
 
paranoia said:
We don't.

Legally, that good or cash continues to belong to the purchaser/owner.

I don't see how these two statements are compatible...


So I 'give' cash to my daughter, lets say $10,000.

Can she spend it? Does she own the things that are purchased?

If she places a bet at the casino and wins another $10,000 is that hers?

If the purchased goods/winnings do still belong to me, you are stopping me gifting to another person. So if you cannot transfer legal ownership of cash, how do you stop someone from doing this?

Am I allowed to sell my possessions? Could I not just sell my car to my child then give them the cash back? or never physically transfer the cash in the first place?

At what value can I no longer transfer ownership to another person? Does a family photo count? How about a commissioned painting of my family?


I honestly can't think of an answer to these questions that doesn't involve a ridiculously over the top authoritarian government. For many people, myself included, this would be far from utopia regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...
Yes, she can spend it.

No, those things are not hers, once she didn't buy them with her own money.

No, those $10K are not hers, once she didn't win them with her own money.

Yes, you cannot make a formal gift to another person, to anyone. That's the idea.

From doing what? Please explain.

Yes, you are allowed to sell your possessions.

No, you cannot give them the cash back. That's the idea.

It's them who need to make the transfer, not you. If they do not transfer the money, let's say $20K, they have $20K from nowhere. They could be charged with ilicit enrichment.

At anything greater than zero. Of course no one will charge a person that has 50 cents from nowhere with ilicit enrichment. But if it's about thousands or millions, you can bet it will happen.

Yes, a family photo counts, everything counts. If one relative of yours want it, he/she can buy it from you. That's the legal way. If you give it to him/her, no one will be arrested. It's like photocopies. It's illegal to photocopy books, even one single page. But, if you photocopy 1 page, nothing will happen to you. If you photocopy hundreds of books, I'm not sure.

You don't need an authoritarian State. You just need common sense. Like in the application of ilicit enrichment and copyrights infringement. Those restrictions already exist and you don't need a ridiculously over the top authoritarian State to enforce them.
 
Phransisku said:
Yes, she can spend it.

No, those things are not hers, once she didn't buy them with her own money.

No, those $10K are not hers, once she didn't win them with her own money.

Yes, you cannot make a formal gift to another person, to anyone. That's the idea.

From doing what? Please explain.

Yes, you are allowed to sell your possessions.

No, you cannot give them the cash back. That's the idea.

Yes, a family photo counts, everything counts. If one relative of yours want it, he/she can buy it from you. That's the legal way. I

You don't need an authoritarian State. You just need common sense. Like in the application of ilicit enrichment and copyrights infringement. Those restrictions already exist and you don't need a ridiculously over the top authoritarian State to enforce them.
Click to expand...

You need a new philosophy as this one i find unpalatable based on your answers above.
A+ for effort but no....just no.
To control what people can do with their own property means it has to be extremely authoritarian.
Your model is set that way.
To police and ensure compliance to what you propose you would need a lot of resources/work.
If we were to use common sense as you say If i gifted something to someone it wouldnt be reported so they could do with it as they will.

Your arguement that people cant charge rent but can live off wealth but need to work is just a big wtf moment for me as it looks like you are arguing against your own proposal to justify its workings...If they still had the wealth why on earth do you think they would work under your system if under the current system they dont?

Im sorry but your idea seems nonsensical and you are exacerbating this by not debating your points clearly.
 
Last edited:
Phransiku: RE Bequests - We have had this discussion before and at heart we don't really disagree except that I see problems in implementing large inheritance taxes. The key issue is that most people are part of a family unit and it is natural that the people who have first claim on the property of their recently deceased loved one are those who were part of the family unit. To deny this automatic transfer of property is to potentially put dependents onto a drip-fed teat of government rather than them being able to largely continue with their lives as they transition to a longer term outcome.

Another obvious issue is that a core part of the starting propositions is essentially the assumption that people with capital are not "working". The number of trust fund babies partying it up are a miniscule proportion of the population. The vast majority of capitalists are constantly working to ensure that their capital is allocated to activities that add value to society. Warren Buffet is an easy example of someone who is fundamentally a capitalist and he works his butt off.

As L.V. Mises has said, to remove the stock market is fundamentally Communism and by doing so makes society lose massive amounts of information about how scarce resources in society should be allocated for the benefit of society. The Spanish anarchists have tried variants of what you propose and always it has turned to shit because the movement of capital is an extremely important component of creative destruction, productivity growth and consequent wealth production for society.
 
Stoic Phoenix said:
To control what people can do with their own property means it has to be extremely authoritarian.
...
To police and ensure compliance to what you propose you would need a lot of resources/work.
If we were to use common sense as you say If i gifted something to someone it wouldnt be reported so they could do with it as they will.
Click to expand...
I think you're having a hard time grasping what already happens today.

Nowadays, there are already restrictions to what you can do with your property. Does that mean you live in an extremely authoritarian regime? Of course not. We live in democracy. And democracy does not mean you can do whatever you want. Democracy is not anarchy. There are rules.

Nowadays, you already have charges for ilicit enrichment and copyright infringements (which demand more or less the same control as the prohibition of wealth transfers). Do they demand a lot of resources/work. Of course not. Policy is implemented with common sense.

And, no, they could not do it as they will. Big amounts of wealth coming from nowhere would be examined and money loundering is a crime already.

You are trying to theorize something that doesn't need to be theorized. It's already happening. In my country. In yours. In every civilized society. And it works.


Stoic Phoenix said:
Your arguement that people cant charge rent but can live off wealth but need to work is just a big wtf moment for me as it looks like you are arguing against your own proposal to justify its workings...If they still had the wealth why on earth do you think they would work under your system if under the current system they dont?
Click to expand...
It looks like that to you because you didn't read the article, you're trying to understand it from small sentences you catch here and there and got confused by them. One suggestion: read the article. You will get much more elucidated.

In workism, people do not need to work. Nobody has to work. Unless they want to be remunerated (to get more wealth than what they have at the moment).
For example, I have 100K€. They are mine. If I don't work, nobody will take that money from me. It's mine. But I need to eat. I need to bath. I need to dress. I need to sleep. I need to do a lot of things that cost money. I can use my 100K€ for that. But it will shrink along the time. If/when it goes to zero, what do I do? Alternatively, I can keep that money intact and work to get more money. That additional money can pay my expenses and those 100K€ do not shrink. It is that simple.
 
bordsilver said:
Phransiku: RE Bequests - We have had this discussion before and at heart we don't really disagree except that I see problems in implementing large inheritance taxes.
Click to expand...
Who talked about large inheritance taxes? Workism doesn't say anything like that.


bordsilver said:
The key issue is that most people are part of a family unit and it is natural that the people who have first claim on the property of their recently deceased loved one are those who were part of the family unit. To deny this automatic transfer of property is to potentially put dependents onto a drip-fed teat of government rather than them being able to largely continue with their lives as they transition to a longer term outcome.
Click to expand...
It is natural for you. Not for people who think that one should work in order to get wealth.

Those dependents can live off their own work, like everybody else. If they are lazy and never cared to work, they will face a big problem when the person that was sustaining them is no longer in this world. I'm sorry to tell you but you sound like communists that are always defending the lazy people. That's why capitalism and communism are birds of a feather. Workism is different.


bordsilver said:
Another obvious issue is that a core part of the starting propositions is essentially the assumption that people with capital are not "working". The number of trust fund babies partying it up are a miniscule proportion of the population. The vast majority of capitalists are constantly working to ensure that their capital is allocated to activities that add value to society. Warren Buffet is an easy example of someone who is fundamentally a capitalist and he works his butt off.
Click to expand...
You think. I believe it's the opposite. But then there's nothing to be affraid if we implement workism. Those hard-working capitalists will definitely succeed. Why don't you ask them if they want workism and see their reaction?


bordsilver said:
As L.V. Mises has said, to remove the stock market is fundamentally Communism and by doing so makes society lose massive amounts of information about how scarce resources in society should be allocated for the benefit of society.
Click to expand...
You're so naive. Do you think that's what the stock market is all about? Go study all the crisis and bubbles produced by financial markets. Go examine the thousands of companies that have tremendous amounts of debt (see if the creation of that debt was really beneficial to the firm). The financial markets fund and propel a lot of incompetence, ruin millions of people's lives along the decades and fill in the pockets of people that are not working. The removal of all of this is communism? You must be joking. Communism is actually quite similar to that.
 
Phransisku said:
No, workism does not force anybody to work. Where did you get that idea from? Please quote the sentences of the article that lead you to think such an outrageous thing.
Click to expand...

It forces people to work if they wish to enhance their prosperity, it makes investment illegal, it would discourage efficiency in resource allocation, it would drive down profits thereby disincentivising entrepreneurial activity, it would lower standards of living for all.

It would result in all of these things because its focus is on only one single factor in the chain of production, labour, rather than the intended goal of all production - consumption. It dismisses the role that savings plays in enhancing wealth. It tampers with individual's time preferences for consumption by removing the incentive to save, ie delay current consumption in favour of future consumption because it places limitations on what an individual can do with accumulated savings eg it makes charging rent for capital and consumer goods illegal. An individual would be prevented from saving money to purchase a house or a truck and then rent that item to another for profit, he would be prevented from lending that money to another at interest.

Workism forces people to work because it is based upon the misguided belief that work is the basis for wealth.
 
Last edited:
I think mmm....shiney! summed it up best: You don't understand your own theory. Neither what it means if it is physically implemented nor the implications of doing so. It's a shame because I enjoy learning and debating about new ideas in this area.
 
The only thing im finding hard to grasp is the fact you think your concept is sound.....I was trying to be diplomatic but after your response why bother...your idea eats the hairy bean bag, plain and simple.

You , unlike the rest of us are emotionally invested in this tripe and as such you cant accept critical analysis or constructive criticism. Essentially you are deluded.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Sorry about the format. Still getting the hang of how new new website deals with images etc. (Easier to read if zoom the browser.)
 
bordsilver said:
I think mmm....shiney! summed it up best: You don't understand your own theory.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who claims workism involves "large inheritance taxes".

You clearly didn't read the article and still have no clue of what workism is about. And, since you are confused, you blame the author. It's as if you bought a machine and didn't even bother to read the instructions. Then you can't make it work. So you blame the engineer that created it, claiming he doesn't understand the machine he has created. That's the poor figure you are making.
 
A student is only as good as his teacher cranksisku.
According to you all of us have no clue, cant grasp it, didnt read...etc.
Stop to consider for a moment that you are the idiot and not us as a collective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top