crac

Unrealistic, foolish, idealistic, perhaps but all of the above applies.

The reasonable test, the fairness test, is this appropriate test, is this person in their right mind test.
Should 9/10ths of the law or what ever excessive proportion be about protecting 'rights of ownership', rather than about people.

Scrap ownership, lets have something else, not communism but something like 'fair and usually exclusive usuage' rights, based on necessity, personal merit, contribution to civilisation, the gratitude of others you have helped. Whatever the reason it's not more important than human beings and the idea of ownership has to change.

Thats just an example of why i think you need to throw out the law book and start again.

John Connor

You're in the wrong forum mate.

__________________
There are three types of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists and those who haven't been paying attention.

Users on ignore list: Akria, Besoeker, Clippo, Ian C.

kernow

Your aims might be achieved in the next life(if there is one) certainly not in this one. Since time immemorial mankind has been obsessed with the greed for power, it is this greed which keeps civilisation moving forward. Everyone feeds off of somebody else. Bosses need workers as much as workers need bosses. " In this life you will meet greater and lesser mortals than yourself"!
" That's a fact Jack"!

crac

Does democracy mean that there must be ownership rights in the way we have them today, or does it mean a system of openness in which everyone has a say in what is decided is right for that society.

We need to make a better world and in doing so we need to recast what is understood to be our rights and responsibilities to create a kinder world where values for anything are not put above human beings and what they need.

Firefly

Lovely idea but I personally don't think it would work. I used to moderate a forum with only one rule. No personal attacks against other members. It was a huge nightmare and my email inbox was FULL of complaints every morning. I would have much prefered specific rules that people couldn't interpret to suit themselves when someone disagreed with their opinion.
Who's to say when someone is being unkind? Or even harder to interpret, someone being reasonable or worst of all fair! That will vary between individuals depending on alot of things like ones own tolerance level, morals and personal defiitions of the words you listed.

crac

Point taken,

You do have to define what those terms mean; reasonable, kind , fair ,,etc Having tried to get back to a simple truth it has to go and get complicated again because people have a tremendous capacity for creative thinking, i think i'll call it.

But my thinking is that this is the place to start rather then a legalistic system based on points of procedure, hair splitting definitions and enormous ineficiencies in time money and justice being delivered.

It can be done but it would mean that a lot of other adjustments would have to be made in society so that every transaction in life is seen and known to have to be; reasonable, kind, fair,,, like this and no other way.

In a little while those definitions as applied to any situation become clear there are not an inexhaustable number of different situations in life.

Why bother you may ask. To make a better world ..... Thats why.

Firefly

Regardless if it will ever work or not crac I think your ideas are lovely. I'd love to live in a world like that though I don't think that will ever happen

Hunter

Has merit and would be ideal were it not for the fact that the system would rely on EVERYONE following the same rules. Human nature, being what it is, may take another few hundred years before it matures enough to grow out of the selfishness which is so predominant at present.

crac

Dear Firefly you are now an honory member of the work of making this world out of lovely ideas.

I just made it, so it must be true!!!

The Bear

Darwinian evolution in terms of physical and social evolution has served us fine well until socialism was allowed to gain a foothold and at that point survival of the best fitted to survive became suppressed to greater and lesser degrees depending on which party was in office.

Human nature is to be greedy and greedy is a good position to adopt. It works.

So do market forces and free market with NO government interference is best of all.

Over my lifetime I have seen the Welfare state, a thing that started out intending to provide the essentials of life to everyone and paid for by sharing the cost across the population as a whole, turned into a foul monster of a thing with an entirely different agenda.

What was originally based on a thing whereby it was a case of “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” has seen the word “needs” replaced by “wants” and even “demands”.

What was once the redistribution of wealth, a terrible thing and legalised theft, has now become redistribution of earnings as a result of the horrendous taxation by New Labour.

If there was to be a change in society in my opinion it should aim at producing very small government delivering a basic health service, emergency services, and the provision of only the essentials of life for those in genuine need, and even then they should wherever possible work for what they were provided with.

Common ownership? Never.