In order to:

allows poeple to choose whatever job they want, and the people all own everything

You need to remove the baseline drudge work, a means of apportioning work, markets to trade on, resources that it can be done with.

Sorry, but simply saying:

We have enough resources and technology to pull this off especially if you count the hoards of hidden resources and 50-100 year worth of futuristic technology the elite are hiding from us.

Doesn't come close to cutting it. If the access has been denied until now, how is it going to be suddenly accessed?

the elite lose all of their power because they can no longer buy people off.

If anything, it would be even easier.

If we all own everything, it is illegal for anyone to hold onto 1000 years worth of resources

And if we all own everything, no one is going to bother to do shit to produce anything further. We'll be left fighting over what currently exists, while abandoning any means of production.

He means to say everyone would stop working because "hey, we own everything!"

Which is a bleak way to look at it, although realistic. Although I imagine if we as a society were seriously making that change, people who don't want to work to get it going at least, won't be included in the beginning.

What do we do with those who flat out refuse?

lol how naive are you? Take a walk through a ghetto and see how many people are looked down upon for not working. Seriously kid grow the fuck up, the proles when they get free stuff will destroy and do jack shit with it.

lol I had neighbors on both sides of me got hurt and deliberately didn't treat it so they could get disability. When I worked at a casino the 1st of the month was always crazy busy and having to hear about "disabled" people bitch about how much money they're getting from other people. Humans are greedy sack of shits who will exploit the system are far as they can go.

So what do you do jail people or kill them when they consume to much? What if they work more or are more successful why should they get less?

So what happens then? I have a bunch of stuff or pass and won't pass it on or my brewery is very successful why do I not get more than someone taking leaves for 5 hours?

So hope do you prevent corruption? I can guarantee you in one week I'd have a flourishing black market system. How do you deal with addicts and drugs

Conservative talking points, essentially you are saying if the rich don't tell us we need a bridge we won't build one.

If the rich don't tell us we need hospitals, we won't care for the sick.

If the rich don't initiate education, we won't have any.

Why do you believe that?

Where's the profit in it?

Sounds like communism

How is it different from communism or socialism?

Communism, the government owns everything; socialism which has very many forms but something between the government owns major industries like electricity, and so on or the government ensures there are services that the government provides or requires.

Short explanation.

With communism, it is not a government owns everything system, it's supposed to be stateless, moneyless, etc

We work to keep each other happy.

You're a downer. Start working to make me happy. It's your idea, after all.

If that really mattered to the 1% there wouldn't be such a great difference between them and the majority of people.

Society has changed from when felt that they needed to do good things for society to where they are more concerned with seeing how much money they can be worth.

LateStageCapitalism is that -> way

I remember working at the food court at the university I went to years ago. The amount of food we threw away forever changed my perception on wasting food. It was unbelievable.

I got trouble a few times for taking perfectly good food home with me that they were just gonna throw out.

Fuck your regulations.

It isn't really the "money system" that is the problem. It is all the regulations and risk of lawsuits. They probably didn't you to take home "bad food" or something and sue them. Also the reason restaurants can't/won't give food away. They don't want to be liable.

Well, that's probably smart. Restaurant food will kill you.

Oh I know it's the regulations. I mean, we would throw away garbage bags upon garbage bags of food, that we JUST prepared, sometimes an hour before closing. Lol. Everything from potatoes, to fruits, desserts, meats, you name it.

It made me absolutely sick to my stomach seeing it, knowing that there are people struggling to even get food. I remember I took a fresh batch of cookies we made that we were told to throw out, stuffed em in my backpack, and walked around campus for a bit handing them out.

I don't care if it was against the rules or not, I felt pretty fuckin good doing that. These days, shit, I'd probably get arrested for it.

I was making a statement on what I thought were the facts. I made no judgement on if it was good or not. Personally I don't think it makes a lot of sense to throw away all this food. But it isn't worth the risk for a lot of places, unfortunately.

That's not what a judge does

Also the harm would have all ready happened as that would be the basis of the suit

It doesn't matter what a judge MIGHT do. Corporate lawyers will advise the company to avoid potential liability by NOT giving the food away. I was an executive with a large McDonald's franchisee. Our attorneys made us put locks on all of our dumpsters to avoid a potential lawsuit by someone who might go into the dumpster and eat food we'd thrown out. The lawyer said that putting locks on the dumpsters would fend off lawsuits because it would show that we were taking steps to prevent people from getting the food we were throwing out.

That's not an excuse, that's a reality and a fact of life.

It's not the laws. It's the fact that people sue over things and refuse to take personal responsibility or assume risks. If someone is getting free food from a food bank and they get sick, they're going to sue because there are hundreds of TV commercials advertising lawyers who will sue anyone at the drop of a hat. If -- instead -- the recipients of the donated food were to simply say: "Well, I took the free food so one of the risks is that it may make me sick" then that would be the end of that. It isn't a law that is the issue, because there aren't many "laws" that prevent donating of food.

No, it is the fact that people sue over every little thing these days. Company lawyers will not allow the companies to expose themselves to potential lawsuit liability.

A family friend owned a restaurant downtown. He would take the leftovers to the homeless after closing. It was all in the take home containers and he had a food license.

Cops would give him a hassle, like you can't feed the homeless as the food might be bad or whatever. It is the exact same food as he was selling to the public! He even had a license. Cops just did not want homeless around. There was no safety issue, nor chance of lawsuit as he was not stealing from his own business. Homeless people sometimes eat out of the dumpsters, so they don't really care about safety. They just want to protect the property values in the downtown area.

Capitalism requires scarcity and cheap labor. I'd say it has a bit to do with the economic system.

I would have to sneak food when I used to work in a dish room at a larger place. We would have taco day in our cafeteria and make huge bins of toppings but we'd end up having a lot extra. Especially guacamole and I love that stuff. I'd have to sneak a plastic container and get some in there before getting caught because we were throwing out a couple pounds of the stuff, but if I didn't sneak it then I'd be considered to be stealing.

I tried convincing my bosses to donate food to places but was told there were all kinds of rules, laws, and regulations in place that could get the place sued if anyone got bad food so they just told us to throw it all away. I later found out the boss wasn't telling the truth, they just didn't feel like dealing with whatever paperwork and extra work would be involved. I even suggested contacting various local farms because the food could possibly be composted or something, but the answer was still just to toss it.

I wanted to point out a possible reasoning for why employees can't take stuff home or it's considered stealing. If you allow employees to take surplus cooked food home you are encouraging employees to make more than is necessary because they know they can take the extra home. It incentivizes waste for the company.

This is not a "possible reason," it is the exact reason. I worked at a pizza place during high school, and when I became part of the management team, we put this rule in place because the employees were deliberately screwing up pizzas so they could take them home at the end of the night.

Apparently giving them free pizza during their shift as a meal wasn't enough.

Lawsuits.

How do we make this happen? We simply all agree to do it in a geographic area somewhere.

How many communes are still around from the 60s/70s?

Howany failed due to their own incompetence and how many were raided by the fbi or some shit?

The starving people should eat the homeless people. Boom get 2 birds stoned at once.

Decentralized alternative competing currencies are the way out.

Excellent post. Are you familiar with Charles Eisenstein's "Sacred Economics?" It goes into some of the alternatives currently available. Ultimately, how humanity moves forward into a post-money world will be a shared decision we all make together. I'm in the process of starting a new project that will focus explicitly on real-world solutions, stay tuned.

Apologies for my reading comprehension

Usury is a sin. Wikipedia says it used to mean all interest but now does not. That is a lie. THE lie that has caused so much to our society today.

You should never give expecting to receive more than you gave.

When you loan money, you give up the use of that money. Interest is fair compensation for the use of money. There's also inflation; the money used to repay a loan over time is worth less than the money loaned. If you only paid back principal, the lender would actually be losing value.

It can certainly be argued that at some levels interest becomes excessive/greedy/unfair/usurious, but paying interest in return for the use of capital is not only fair and reasonable, but it greatly benefits both parties.

the problem is that sytem only works if you have growth. if not, the person loaning out ends up owning everything eventually. that's the crisis that our system is heading for - when the natural world can no longer support the growth required.

A non usury loan can exist and be beneficial for banks in a society where usury no longer exists. If I loan you $10,000 you'd agree to give me back $15,000 within 5 years (Numbers are just examples). There's no interest on that loan, and you do owe me back more than I lent you. It still allows banks to make profits that they need to pay their employees, maintain their databases, and storage of money and other goods.

If you haven't read it yet, I think you would really like Daniel Quinn's work. Ishmael, in particular, has opened a world of thought to me that has guided me ever since.

The sequel "My Ishmael" has deepened my questioning and "The Story of B" has opened up a path to a new way of thinking.

I think the solution should be a section of heavily discounted items for low income families in groceries. Perhaps not the complete answer to the problem, but nearly expired products could be placed there as an alternative welfare system to reduce waste

just a small part of the defense budget would be enough to provide some basic food ...

Entitlements already dwarf the defense budget immensely.

I don't think money itself is the problem. Money is only a tool to represent fair exchange of goods and services.

I think the problem is our current implementation of money using central banks. Central banking has these properties:

• Supply is not limited by real-world resources
• Relatively few people / private entities control the money supply
• Wealth can be transferred from money holders to money creators by creating new money
• Purchasing power decreases over time because of inflation as new money is created
• Permission from banks is required to open a bank account to participate in the global economy
• Financial transactions are monitored; there is no right to privacy

By comparison, digital currency, or cryptocurrency, is based on blockchain technology and has these properties:

• Decentralized governance; no one entity is in control
• Anyone can participate in mining which is how new supply comes into existence
• Supply is limited by open source code which anyone can inspect and contribute to
• Value increases over time and with utility because supply is limited
• Permission is not required to transact; censorship resistant
• Borderless payments, i.e. global currency
• Permanent settlement within minutes
• Fees of up to a few dollars (most are pennies)
• No trusted third parties necessary
• Enables financial privacy
• Most secure networks in the world by far
• Programmable money for a new generation of applications we can't conceive of yet

I think improving our implementation of money can achieve the goals of the video; global abundance for all and the betterment of mankind and our relationship with nature.

Is this different than /r/basicincome?

What is the exact definition/classification for "food insecurity"?

You can blame lawyers for all the food thrown out by businesses/corporations. It's their fault because now companies cannot risk the liabilities of someone somewhere getting a little stomachache from donated food and subsequently filing exorbitant lawsuits.

You do know the communist approach has failed everywhere, right? Please tell me you know this. Communism as a bureaucracy maybe works when it comes to controlling the government and military, but has failed everywhere on the financial and business side.

In the US we see the elites wanting some form of communism, but only because they think they will rule over all of us with an iron rod. This is why I think Islam is becoming useful to them, it is a religion of obedience.

Literally all religion is a relgion of obedience, religion and obedience should just be synonyms honestly

Avis Everhard would have something to say about this.

42 million starving Americans, billion dollar sports stadiums, and athletes spraying $200k worth of champagne on each other.

God bless this great nation.

What if everyone ate smaller portions make the standard portion smaller and meals will be cheaper/more affordable and obesity would go down

It's not that complicated; we just need a government that cares about average people. That's why I voted for Bernie Sanders. We also have tons of homelessness and millions of vacant houses.

It shouldn't be "communism versus capitalism" anymore. We can find a balance, and I argue it'll be easier to find once we legalize weed fully and people relax and get a bit more compassionate. Our society doesn't have to be all about cutthroat competition; really it doesn't.

Theres not millions of starving people in the US.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://

Youree just wrong

Your link doesnt talk about starvation. It doesnt matter, starvation isnt a problem in the US.

Got photos of any of these starving 10's of millions?

[Poverty and Obesity in the USA](poverty and obesity in the u.s)

How about liberty, as a "system"?

Money is the root of all evil.

Sacred economics doesn't use money or trade, it allows poeple to choose whatever job they want, and the people all own everything.

Who is going to go out and work on the power lines in horrible weather? We get around that issue today by paying them lots extra.

We will have a vacant job site for people to see what is most needed in their local zip codes. Many would be honored to do a job like that for the community.

Then why do people litter?

For those who want to sound smart and call this communism, you are wrong. Communist USSR paid its citizens $1.50-$3.50 a day, they used money, they forced people into certain jobs, and the government owned everything.

In this instance you would both be wrong. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society theorized to follow full socialism. The Communist Party of the USSR wasn't so named because they or their government were communist, but rather because communism was the nominal end goal of their ideology.

To add to this, the Marxist-Leninist state collectivization and bureaucracy they attempted to use to implement socialism is not the only theoretical form of socialism. There are numerous socialist ideologies, many of which are libertarian in nature. For example, I like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism.

Since we all own everything, we use the caretaker program meaning if you are using an item, it is yours until you no longer need it so you give it away.

This is literally socialism. The whole idea of socialism is the democratization of the economy, because capitalism is in essence a form of neo-Feudalism, where everything has been made private property and the vast majority must submit to a property owner in a wage labor relationship in order to survive. Since survival is at stake, the "free contract" voluntaryists/Right-libertarians speak of its inherently impossible.

P.s. I think you might just be afraid to consider socialism due to decades of propaganda and brainwashing at the hands of capitalist America (you know, the same corporations and banks you're talking about). Try reading more about socialism, in particular non Marxist-Leninist perspectives. The USSR's system was socialist, but not all socialism is Marxism-Leninism or structured in the same way. I suggest reading Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread for a libertarian socialist perspective. It's available online.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 81173}

Food thrown away.

People starving.

LET. THEM. EAT. TRASH!

Food thrown away.

People starving.

LET. THEM. EAT. TRASH!

Something like this is the solution: http://naturalsociety.com/self-sustaining-town-grows-vegetables-unlikely-places/

How about the geographic area is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ertholmene archiplelago? Picturesque views, part of Denmark, and only 78 current inhabitants.

and when you look at all the fatties in USA than even the 50% used is way to much ..

Maybe somebody who works for amazon can confirm, but I have a friend who told me they destroy all food products prior to expiration date because its probably going to be on the shelf at expiration.

It's insane to think there's warehouses all over the country that are incinerating palettes of perfectly good food products.

The real problem these days is that rather than a means of facilitating trade as it used to be in the past, money now is primarily used as a (false, attempted) means of demonstrating our worth as human beings. This is not remotely what money should be used for at all; but that is the real reason for all the inequality.

The cost of an item now has nothing whatsoever to do with its' commonality or scarcity, but rather the perceived degree of social status that it will confer to the person who owns it. In one shop I can buy a jar of coconut oil for $20, and in another I can get it for $5. It all has to do with coconut oil being a food status symbol now; it is considered a "superfood," so sick, pretentious people buy it not for its' real nutritional value, but for how they will appear to their equally mentally ill friends.

This is a psychopathic scenario, and it causes environmental destruction and human misery.

Oh to be young again.

it's not communism because it doesn't use fiat currency. M8.....

Money will always exist. It is the just the good that people trade with the most. It exists eventually wherever barter exists. So unless you plan on stopping people from being able to trade, money will exist.

This is such a load of crap. "People will get to choose what job they want" somehow I think we will have a lot of people wanting to designers and not a whole ton of people in the sewage treatment line. It's no ones passion to make pencils for 12 hours a day but we've shown if we want our kids to have pencils for school someone needs to do it and fuck you I'm not doing it I need my damn gifts after my long day of being one of our societies very valuable pet psychics. When society is the size of ours you need mass manufacturing to supply shit like clothes and paper and fucking food. He says in the video "oh maybe ill grow a garden to make the world beautiful" we dont need gardens we need massive fucking fields of corn to make enough food for everyone and it's no ones passion to wake up every morning at the crack of dawn and grow nothing but miles and miles of fucking corn meanwhile you are guaranteed to come out the same as the guy who decided photography is his passion and can wake up at noon. This is just a stupid ass name for communism and all it does is inspire laziness, there's dirty jobs boring jobs and thankless jobs in the world which only get done because it gives you a better life. If your life is already great why would anyone be a garbage collector? What if I decide I don't have any kind of passion at all and I have no "gifts" to give to the world am I now going to starve because no one will give me a gift? What if a lot of people do this? How will we track who's a good gift giver and who's not? Maybe when you give a gift to someone whther it be goods or services I could give you a little ticket that shows you gave me a gift and then you could give that to someone in exchange for gifts from them! No that's crazy.

KOYAAAAAAAANISQATSIIIIIIIIIIIII

Large amounts of food are thrown away by supermarkets now. They used to donate a lot of expiring/expired foods and produce that were approaching end of shelf life to food banks but, thanks to our overly-litigious society, they have started to destroy these things instead.

Recently had a local supermarket throw out dozens of cases of bananas that would have been great to donate to the local food bank. The produce manager told me that the company requires him to throw the bananas out and then pour chemicals on them to make them inedible because of the fact that they have been sued in the past over products they had donated to local food banks.

If you want to lay some blame for this problem, blame the frivolous lawsuits that people insist on bringing against companies that are actually trying to do good for people in need.

He means to say everyone would stop working because "hey, we own everything!"

Which is a bleak way to look at it, although realistic. Although I imagine if we as a society were seriously making that change, people who don't want to work to get it going at least, won't be included in the beginning.

So hope do you prevent corruption? I can guarantee you in one week I'd have a flourishing black market system. How do you deal with addicts and drugs

Entitlements already dwarf the defense budget immensely.