Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: The System of Work.

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    Why wouldn't you allow a citizen to be allowed to choose their task or career in the RBE themselves from the start?

    I don't expect telling people what they will be doing will inspire much motivation to participate in such a resource management model.

    Why not let people's personal motivations decide where they will contribute their skills and energies?

    Not everyone is going to be at one level of drive and personal motivation. People in a population exist at a variety of levels of personal drive and motivation levels. Not everyone is going to want to be a high performing professional or know what they want to do. Nor is everyone going to be undecided on a career and open to any available task.

    There will be some who choose on a definite career path and others more indifferent and undecided to what they do to obtain their needed resources and as such open to performing lower skilled tasks in the meantime.

    The point is, all you have to do is make some kind of cooperative work input (other than leisure and entertainment work) required of each citizen to receive their regular allowance of resources and people will naturally gravitate to a career or task themselves without the need to force them into a specific area.

    I'm not sure why you think there is a need to make this unnecessarily complicated or authoritarian. If people must input work in a RBE to receive resources (just like they do now, btw), they will find something to do themselves.
    I specifically said people can choose their own careers anytime anyplace and can change it whenever they want but when it comes to the secondary career known as civil service the application will be what is best suited to the needs of society and their abilities, the work will be balanced and fair.

    For example,

    I can choose any career path possible and can participate in my agencies facilities if I qualify.

    I will, however, should I be drafted due to my abilities and the needs of society to be for example a paramedic (should there be a lack of them etc) I will be required to serve the needs of society, only the best suited for civil service will be selected and a rotation will be set up to allow them a fair balance (usually will select those willing but if there is no one willing it will select the best suited, such work must be considered acceptable by NELO, no inhumane work.).

    My work schedule will be balanced between my primary career (career of choice) and my secondary career (career of need) in between times of leisure and or creative work.

    Secondary work example:

    If for example society does not have a sufficient amount of willing sanitation workers, a public draft will be commissioned and all applicable (capable) people will be applied to it, only the best suited for the job will be mandated to the act of civil service and it should be considered an honor like serving in the military as to protect the people (in a military actually designed to do so).

    It will be like jury duty, although in NELO (the jury will not exist and will be replaced with direct law and order as well as evidence-based convictions.)
    Last edited by Izon; 04-05-2016 at 04:57 PM.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    I specifically said people can choose their own careers anytime anyplace and can change it whenever they want but when it comes to the secondary career known as civil service the application will be what is best suited to the needs of society and their abilities, the work will be balanced and fair.

    For example,

    I can choose any career path possible and can participate in my agencies facilities if I qualify.

    I will, however, should I be drafted due to my abilities and the needs of society to be for example a paramedic (should there be a lack of them etc) I will be required to serve the needs of society, only the best suited for civil service will be selected and a rotation will be set up to allow them a fair balance (usually will select those willing but if there is no one willing it will select the best suited, such work must be considered acceptable by NELO, no inhumane work.).

    My work schedule will be balanced between my primary career (career of choice) and my secondary career (career of need) in between times of leisure and or creative work.

    Secondary work example:

    If for example society does not have a sufficient amount of willing sanitation workers, a public draft will be commissioned and all applicable (capable) people will be applied to it, only the best suited for the job will be mandated to the act of civil service and it should be considered an honor like serving in the military as to protect the people (in a military actually designed to do so).

    It will be like jury duty.
    Instead of forcing service, since the workers will be the recipients of any services and goods that will be produced, it might be better to just allow the absence or lack of a needed service to spur the voluntary application of individual human labor to those areas. In other words, the possibility of no food should spur volunteers in food production. The lack of sanitary waste disposal should spur volunteers in waste disposal and so forth. If you force people into waste disposal they're going to think you're running a gulag.
    Izon, droneBEE and Ernest like this.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    Instead of forcing service, since the workers will be the recipients of any services and goods that will be produced, it might be better to just allow the absence or lack of a needed service to spur the voluntary application of individual human labor to those areas. In other words, the possibility of no food should spur volunteers in food production. The lack of sanitary waste disposal should spur volunteers in waste disposal and so forth. If you force people into waste disposal they're going to think you're running a gulag.
    When there is a lack of volunteers, "society does not have a sufficient amount of willing sanitation workers", your solution is understandable but it is a form of coercion (taking away doctors until people start getting sick to the point where we need doctors) and doesn't provide effective results as you can assume people don't willingly clean the sewers when there is a problem, in order to keep things running efficiently so we don't have problems to begin with we mandate civil service to protect society from ill-will (a lack of care), the objective is to maximize our creative efforts and our abilities to provide as much as possible as to provide as much as possible based on our optimal potential, not to wing it but to win it.

    In NELO/NLRBE we don't rely on the invisible hand we rely on ourselves and nature.

    I appreciate your good intentions but in an NLRBE, we are devoted to caring for society, when a part of our societal body is injured or bellow the standards for health like the body we will send cells to reinforce the position.

    The cells in our body don't say I don't feel like providing my services for the well-being of society/body, in that case, the cell becomes cancer and begins to harm the body/society, the body & society rejects cancer.

    It is the natural and right thing to do.

    We are all one.

    http://prnt.sc/ajoxvu
    Last edited by Izon; 04-05-2016 at 05:36 PM.
    fsir and droneBEE like this.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    When there is a lack of volunteers, "society does not have a sufficient amount of willing sanitation workers", your solution is understandable but it is a form of coercion (taking away doctors until people start getting sick to the point where we need doctors) and doesn't provide effective results as you can assume people don't willingly clean the sewers when there is a problem, in order to keep things running efficiently so we don't have problems to begin with we mandate civil service to protect society from ill-will (a lack of care), the objective is to maximize our creative efforts and our abilities to provide as much as possible as to provide as much as possible based on our optimal potential, not to wing it but to win it.

    In NELO/NLRBE we don't rely on the invisible hand we rely on ourselves and nature.

    I appreciate your good intentions but in an NLRBE, we are devoted to caring for society, when a part of our societal body is injured or bellow the standards for health like the body we will send cells to reinforce the position.

    The cells in our body don't say I don't feel like providing my services for the well-being of society/body, in that case, the cell becomes cancer and begins to harm the body/society, the body & society rejects cancer.

    It is the natural and right thing to do.

    We are all one.

    Screenshot by Lightshot

    Perhaps I've been misunderstanding a RBE all along. Are there no versions of a RBE proposed by anyone where participation in labor is voluntary?

    In my own version I see it as completely voluntary and for those tasks which are particularly unsavory I also suggest the use of less hours of work to induce voluntary participation.

    P.S. I went to the link you posted. While I can get onboard with the "we are all one" concept, I've never seen that symbol before.
    Last edited by fsir; 04-05-2016 at 06:07 PM.
    Izon, droneBEE and Ernest like this.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    Perhaps I've been misunderstanding a RBE all along. Are there no versions of a RBE proposed by anyone where participation in labor is voluntary?

    In my own version I see it as completely voluntary and for those tasks which are particularly unsavory I also suggest the use of less hours of work to induce voluntary participation.
    RBE labor is voluntary as long as it doesn't cause suffering and death, the natural function is to survive and develop by adapting to our environment which means the need to increase our productivity in order to maximize our survival.

    Today it is the lack of opportunity and financial security that forces people to take unsavory jobs, in an NLRBE it is a civil service/duty to society for its healthy function applied to all it's members

    P.S the symbol represents that unity is greater than division and that the separated are reaching out to the greater power of unity as well as the fact that regardless we are all one but we only maximize our potential when we accept it/unite, it is also drawn in one stroke furthering the notion that it symbolizes being one.

    The united are on top using individuals as its foundational support, it is also a symbol of the superiority of unity dominating the divisional inferiority with its greatness (size) and it's position (status) the top and in the center (in control)

    I use it as my signature.

    Last edited by Izon; 04-05-2016 at 06:23 PM.
    fsir, droneBEE and Ernest like this.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    RBE labor is voluntary as long as it doesn't cause suffering and death, the natural function is to survive and develop by adapting to our environment which means the need to increase our productivity in order to maximize our survival.

    Today it is the lack of opportunity and financial security that forces people to take unsavory jobs, in an NLRBE it is a civil service/duty to society for its healthy function applied to all it's members.)
    One of the criticisms the RBE has for capitalism and the free market is that, because there are no viable alternatives, people don't have much of a choice but to participate in a monetary system. But they they typically have a choice in what manner they will participate in monetary exchange. In other words, they don't have to be waste disposal workers if they don't want to be.

    It seems to me that whatever th economic model, one of the standards of whether it works or not is that people participate in it willingly at all times. But right off the bat you are telling people there will be some coercion in your natural law RBE. I don't think that makes for a very effective challenge to capitalism and the free market. Yes, capitalism damages the environment, no doubt, but at least they have found ways, using incentives, to get most people able to do so to choose their tasks or careers voluntarily.

    If your version of a NLRBE truly worked, there would be no reason for its participants to be force into certain actions and you would grant them no reasons to complain. Once you have participants that are complaining, you have a coercive economic model and a failed one.

    One thing the free market does consistently is take away a person's freedom by putting them under the direction of someone else. In your proposal, you are guaranteeing that will happen. If people want anything more than money, it's their freedom. An economic model that can grant them more of that is the real winner.

    Participation has to be inspired not required.
    Last edited by fsir; 04-06-2016 at 05:34 AM.
    droneBEE and Ernest like this.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    One of the criticisms the RBE has for capitalism and the free market is that, because there are no viable alternatives, people don't have much of a choice but to participate in a monetary system. But they they typically have a choice in what manner they will participate in monetary exchange. In other words, they don't have to be waste disposal workers if they don't want to be.

    It seems to me that whatever th economic model, one of the standards of whether it works or not is that people participate in it willingly at all times. But right off the bat you are telling people there will be some coercion in your natural law RBE. I don't think that makes for a very effective challenge to capitalism and the free market. Yes, capitalism damages the environment, no doubt, but at least they have found ways, using incentives, to get most people able to do so to choose their tasks or careers voluntarily.

    If your version of a NLRBE truly worked, there would be no reason for its participants to be force into certain actions and you would grant them no reasons to complain. Once you have participants that are complaining, you have a coercive economic model and a failed one.

    One thing the free market does consistently is take away a person's freedom by putting them under the direction of someone else. In your proposal, you are guaranteeing that will happen. If people want anything more than money, it's their freedom. An economic model that can grant them more of that is the real winner.

    Participation has to be inspired not required.
    "Participation has to be inspired not required" that is a good statement, but that implies that the participation is inspirable before the damage is done, it is likely that will be the case in the RBE culture, but should society begin to degrade due to a lack of caring members it will require a defense mechanism to protect it from harm and it will likely manifest that mechanism as a jury based system for work, that work being secondary allowing people to continue their careers etc.

    You are correct about the capitalist system, it destroys the concept of freedom.

    For example, one day I work as an engineer the next day I work as a sanitation worker (the next time I need to do so, the rotation has put someone else in my place), the next day is leisure, the next day is creative work, the next day is engineer, the next day is leisure, the next day is creative work, the next day is engineer, the next day is sanitation worker or paramedic, etc you get the picture, it may be spread so thin I may only have to do one work day a year for my secondary job, I don't need to do my primary job or creative work I can have it as all leisure but people will enjoy working a job they love.
    Last edited by Izon; 04-06-2016 at 07:52 AM.
    fsir, droneBEE and Ernest like this.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    "Participation has to be inspired not required" that is a good statement, but that implies that the participation is inspirable before the damage is done, it is likely that will be the case in the RBE culture, but should society begin to degrade due to a lack of caring members it will require a defense mechanism to protect it from harm and it will likely manifest that mechanism as a jury based system for work, that work being secondary allowing people to continue their careers etc.

    You are correct about the capitalist system, it destroys the concept of freedom.

    For example, one day I work as an engineer the next day I work as a sanitation worker (the next time I need to do so, the rotation has put someone else in my place), the next day is leisure, the next day is creative work, the next day is engineer, the next day is leisure, the next day is creative work, the next day is engineer, the next day is sanitation worker or paramedic, etc you get the picture, it may be spread so thin I may only have to do one work day a year for my secondary job, I don't need to do my primary job or creative work I can have it as all leisure but people will enjoy working a job they love.
    I'm not sure why you can't just regulate what materials can be used for sustainability to avoid damage to the planet instead of regulating the movements of individuals into tasks and careers. People who are not good at what they do will be found out and dismissed. Why can't you just regulate industries instead of individuals? It seems to me you could achieve the same efficiency results that way. Obviously, people are going to stay in an occupation they are good at and leave one they are not if they are not producing a consumable good or service that also conforms to regulations.
    Ernest likes this.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    I'm not sure why you can't just regulate what materials can be used for sustainability to avoid damage to the planet instead of regulating the movements of individuals into tasks and careers. People who are not good at what they do will be found out and dismissed. Why can't you just regulate industries instead of individuals? It seems to me you could achieve the same efficiency results that way. Obviously, people are going to stay in an occupation they are good at and leave one they are not if they are not producing a consumable good or service that also conforms to regulations.
    Well, when people utilize resources in the primary job it comes in two stages.

    Official use and non-official use.

    Official use is what access to materials they are allowed through special access gained for by being an active member in an agencies facility, this equipment is either contracted by the individual in the agency's facility after it has been approved by the standards board of acquisition or provided by the board itself each of which is governed by regulations set by the people and or the requirement's for the healthy functioning of society.

    Non-official use is the standard access to the market based upon the exchange rate determined by dynamic equilibrium with our reserves, the system of development and integrity as well as nature.

    The objective is to maximize our development and integrity.

    Think of it like energy, let's place the energy on a scale between power and sustainability.

    Let's use a scale for a given state, the maximum power output on the scale from 10 to 1. something at 10 power aka 100% only lasts for 1 second but it provides the maximum output of energy for a given state, something at 1 power aka 1% power lasts for 10 seconds but provides the least amount of output for the given state.

    A good example is having a dwarf star or a supernova, we make it just right and have the sun (star).

    Sort of like the story of goldilocks and the three bears.

    The objective of the economy is to balance these forces so our economy would look something like this, the power state would be 5 aka 50% and it would last the most amount of time and provide the highest amount of energy output for the given state.

    That is equilibrium when we refer to the economy, the objective is to grow the potential for our state of power while keeping equilibrium so we maximize our the potential to grow and sustain ourselves, maximizing our evolutionary potential and our survival potential.


    The officials who through their primary jobs are applicable and accepted into working in one of society's agency's facilities will be governed through the industry as would anyone working in the agencies of society, secondary jobs apply to people when there is a need for a given service (the objective is to eliminate that need but should it exist we are to provide the services required to sustain the health of society), if it can be done in way that doesn't require the use of force and doesn't hurt society's health that would be optimal, the priority is society's health regardless of the circumstance, as the objective is to create the development and maintain the integrity of society, survival & evolution, NLRBE.

    All work is governed by agencies (who's regulations are set by the people and NELO/NLRBE) to maximize the health of society and put society into equilibrium with productivity and sustainability with the priority being primarily being health and secondarily being creativity (luxuries included).
    Last edited by Izon; 04-06-2016 at 04:03 PM.
    fsir likes this.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    You could also relate it to the example of the different types of stars or our orbit around the sun, etc.

    The more energy output the star gives and the longer it lasts the more we the people on the planet can use it and the longer we can do so, also the planet will not be a frozen wasteland or be a molten hell.

    The objective is to have the economy be in the goldilocks zone for its standard of which we will regard as it's equilibrium.

    The state of which it can maximize its lifetime and do the most with its life.

    Health is determined by nature as survival and evolution determine the state of a pattern.

    Even suffering and sadness, pain etc does not suit our health as it does not promote the desire to live and so we cannot fulfill our lives to the maximum of our abilities, it is counterproductive and so anything against nature is immoral and or evil, bad & wrong.

    Suffering goes against natural existential law & order unless it is a necessary evil etc (refer to the law and order of righteousness).

    If we are in harmony with nature, we are in good hands.
    Last edited by Izon; 04-06-2016 at 04:15 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1