Wouldn't it be better if we all shared everything?

Question

Wouldn't it be better if we get rid of money, but instead distrubuted equal amount of basic resources to everyone, so that one person doesn't get more based on rank or job, but instead we are equal?

Do you all need rewards in order to make you happy? I don't because I don,t really care about money and I do my job the best I can to contribute to society.

Maybe someone should take CARE of their stuff, then that dillema wouldn't exist, pdooma!

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

Communal living can be made to work in very small scale systems that are very tightly governed. But once you get anything larger than a large farm, it becomes unmanageable. Greed, laziness and corruption tear the Utopian ideal apart almost instantly. People refuse to work hard when their work does not benefit them. When they can sit back and let everyone else do the work for them while they reap the same rewards there is no motivation for society to advance. The only way to force people to participate is with a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, which further crushes the spirit of the people. I think Lenin really had good intentions when he lead Russia into Communism, but his idealism clouded his judgment. We can see in the history of the USSR the ultimate path that communism will follow and it always leads to ruin.

Answer 3

There will always be a system of exchange. For that is, after all, what money is. It's the same as sugar or beads or chocolate...it's something to trade for a good or a service. Say I get 2 pairs of shoes in this equal distribution. Well, I don't need 2 pairs, but you just had your two pairs lost in a fire. I can't give you mine, because, well, that's not fair right? Then you would have gotten 3 pairs and I would have only gotten 1. I could, however, swap you the shoes for that extra hat you have that you're not using... Oh wait, this is trading on a market isn't it and isn't fair either.

So fires don't happen? Floods? Car accidents. You drop a mug. You don't lose an umbrella on the bus? Please. People lose / break things everyday.

Answer 4

No it would not. For instance, a hard-working man or woman is working long hours, supporting his\her family and gets the same amount as someone sitting on thier butt, eating donuts and not supportinng anyone but themselves. In capitalism, the hard-working are rewarded by earnig raises and promotions whilst the screwoffs are fired and demoted. In a perfect world, everything would be okay for socialsim, but in the world where we live, hard work should be rewarded with more money and more rewards.

Answer 5

The system you are referring to is Communisn. Communism is idealistic and sounds good on paper but doesn't work in practice due to numerous in-built flaws:

1) There is no incentive to produce goods or fill the gaps in the market - Communist countries always have shortages of random objects.
2) There is no boom and bust - just bust as there is nothing to stimulate the economy.
3) Without a private sector paying income taxes there is no money available to fund the state sector.
4) State run institutions are notoriously inefficient and wasteful - although some things should be under state control others should remain in the hands of private companies.

So yeah, it's a nice idea and it would be better in theory but in practice it simply doesn't work. So my answer is a resounding no.

Answer 6

Not at all. What you advocate is communism. The whole point of capitalism is the profit motive. You have to risk time and capital to make a business work. The incentive to do so is the return from the investment: profit.

Look at the massive poverty in N Korea and Cuba to see what would happen if you succeed in what you advocate.

Answer 7

no, because the hard workers would be carrying the lazy slackers. it would never work, and there will always be greedy people

I, for example could have a job sitting on my @ss doing practially nothing, while someone else is doing heart transplant surgeries, we get the same things in return for our work? I don't think so, then why would anyone kill themselves going to school for a decade to be a doctor when they can work at mcdonalds?

and furthermore....
scenario: my child is going to freeze to death, there is one blanket, and a bunch of people (also freezing) am I going to part with the blanket and cut it into pieces and share? heII no

Answer 8

We tried that in one of my classes.

In the end, every one else slacked off, and I was the only one that got work done. If I didn't receive any reward for that (a grade), then I would have eventually slacked off too. Not right away, but after a few years of being the chump.

Answer 9

When yuo grow up you will realize that many many people do not have a WORK ETHIC and do as little as possible to survive and want it handed to them...the system you are promoting encourages that...History has shown this....

Answer 10

If you have ever read Neale Donald Walsch, who happens to be one of my very favorite authors, you would find that his books agree with what you are saying here. According to these books, that is pretty much the way that highly evolved societies do indeed operate, and that is what makes them highly evolved. Many people might scoff at these books, but I agree with them at least 95% *sm*

Answer 11

No. Lazy would drain the hard working. We already have a safety net for the poor it is called welfare. It may be full of holes but it is the best & fairest system.