Interesting idea or not?
American Prosperity Share2 total reviews
Comment from Michael Ludwinder
Very interesting. I really admire how you've designed a system where everyone can still chase personal goals while contributing to the broader community. While it smells like a socialist system which I'm generally against. And big government - also against. Your idea is inspiring and feels like an objective to be more fair which I think is great.
  |
Very interesting. I really admire how you've designed a system where everyone can still chase personal goals while contributing to the broader community. While it smells like a socialist system which I'm generally against. And big government - also against. Your idea is inspiring and feels like an objective to be more fair which I think is great.
Comment Written 06-Nov-2024
Comment from lancellot
IE, let the government own the means of production and institute a socialist system, built of force. Because you will need to force this upon those who want to live free and keep what they labored/earned.
Here's the problem, your idea has no bones, or it has not support. You give no mention of how this will be implemented, enforced, nor examples where such a system has succeeded. It is one thing to try this is homogeneous and small population, but a totally different thing to try to force this upon a heterogenous multi-ethic, racial, religious, cultural 350 million plus population with an established history and legacy of individual liberty, capitalism and property ownership. Not to mention, once you promise every citizen an 'equitable' share, (equity requires discrimination by someone), you have to secure your borders to prevent a flood of migration. Meaning you'll need more enforcers.
In other words: No, this is not interesting idea. It is poorly thought out and would lead to a civil war or a totalitarian nightmare.
They should have been on their hands and knees in praise of me instead of throwing me out!
-They already do. If the nation crumbles, we all fall.
Individuals and companies can earn {freely, but}
-Free and the but, cancel each other out. And what happens if all the companies stop at that point or don't reach it. Are they still being taxed?
reply by the author on 09-Nov-2024
 |
IE, let the government own the means of production and institute a socialist system, built of force. Because you will need to force this upon those who want to live free and keep what they labored/earned.
Here's the problem, your idea has no bones, or it has not support. You give no mention of how this will be implemented, enforced, nor examples where such a system has succeeded. It is one thing to try this is homogeneous and small population, but a totally different thing to try to force this upon a heterogenous multi-ethic, racial, religious, cultural 350 million plus population with an established history and legacy of individual liberty, capitalism and property ownership. Not to mention, once you promise every citizen an 'equitable' share, (equity requires discrimination by someone), you have to secure your borders to prevent a flood of migration. Meaning you'll need more enforcers.
In other words: No, this is not interesting idea. It is poorly thought out and would lead to a civil war or a totalitarian nightmare.
They should have been on their hands and knees in praise of me instead of throwing me out!
-They already do. If the nation crumbles, we all fall.
Individuals and companies can earn {freely, but}
-Free and the but, cancel each other out. And what happens if all the companies stop at that point or don't reach it. Are they still being taxed?
Comment Written 05-Nov-2024
reply by the author on 09-Nov-2024
-
This idea isn't about government control or forced socialism but rather enhancing capitalism by promoting both individual success and shared prosperity. Private enterprise and market freedom remain intact, with only extreme excess profits redirected to benefit society, encouraging innovation and community investment rather than coercion.
The concept is inspired by successful examples like the Alaska Permanent Fund, showing that shared wealth models can work without sacrificing liberty. Implementation would emphasize incentives over force, with high earners able to choose where excess funds go, aligning with personal freedom and social responsibility.
Ultimately, the proposal aims to balance economic freedom and social stability, preventing societal harm from extreme disparities while preserving the principles of capitalism.
-
As you wish, but coercion or force is required to get people to do anything beyond their natural self-interest. To deny that, is to deny human history and human nature. But it's your commentary.
