A Society based on Contributionism

[Bonzo77]

So there is a hierarchy then?

 

I didn't mention anything about no hierarchy. You must be referring to something chem1st mentioned.

[*_ash_*]

I didn't mention anything about no hierarchy. You must be referring to something chem1st mentioned.

 

 

 

No but I did and that's what this series of posts was about, I asked chemist about this (and included text from the OP link), and you answered, and you have been quoting/answering me.

 

You then introduced 'ownership' and 'sackings', which I asked (rhetorically) whether this is could be considered a hierarchy.

[Bonzo77]

 

 

 

No but I did and that's what this series of posts was about, I asked chemist about this (and included text from the OP link), and you answered, and you have been quoting/answering me.

 

You then introduced 'ownership' and 'sackings', which I asked (rhetorically) whether this is could be considered a hierarchy.

 

I see. My apologies, getting my wires crossed!

 

Personally, I wouldn't want a society with no hierarchy as such. I like capitalism. I just think it needs regulating heavily to get the best out of it for everyone.

[*_ash_*]

I see. My apologies, getting my wires crossed!

 

Personally, I wouldn't want a society with no hierarchy as such. I like capitalism. I just think it needs regulating heavily to get the best out of it for everyone.

 

haha, I can see wires crossed now looking at the posts!

 

A society without hierarchy is in this though, it has to be considered because that is what Solomon put in the OP.

 

If you get rid of that, or anything else in the OP link, then it's a different topic, because it's altering it.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 02:35 ----------

 

I see. My apologies, getting my wires crossed!

 

Personally, I wouldn't want a society with no hierarchy as such. I like capitalism. I just think it needs regulating heavily to get the best out of it for everyone.

 

As it happens I would agree with this, if I altered it slightly to this:

 

'Personally, I wouldn't want a society with no hierarchy as such, nor do I think it is possible at all, and why it's a very important aspect of this topic. I accept capitalism is perhaps the best system we have today with so many people, and as a global [western] society. I just think it needs regulating heavily to get the best out of it for everyone. However, long term, I think that ultimately is will cause it's own downfall and only the richest will survive*. Then who knows.

 

-

 

*I don't necessarily mean your Richard Bransons though at first. I mean the richest like me and you.

 

Long term, well security is a growing industry. If the global society collapsed, then those with helicopters or money to purchase tickets to the prized island with heavy weaponry might have a good chance.

 

Sounds a bit like 1500 years ago with the old castles really doesn't it? Whole life cycles and circles, but with bigger weapons available for the richest today They didn't need nukes then, all they needed was enough fight power to overcome the next best. It's no different now.

 

Perhaps they will live in the manner of the OP society? Once isolated, money means nothing, and it starts again with everyone the same.

Edited December 31, 2014 by *_ash_*

[Mecky]

Where the wealthy stop benefits for those worse off for themselves and through money to them whilst thinking they are some kind of lord of the land.

[Bonzo77]

I think capitalism can last indefinitely if it's heavily regulated.