PDA

View Full Version : Take it, please, I insist.


marz
August 13th, 2011, 01:04 PM
You now live in a world (not just society) where everything is free. The people here are inherently good and share everything without a second thought. If you want something, the only trouble you'll have is finding it. As soon as that's taken care of, it's yours. There is no currency, there is no trade. There is only give.

Is this type of world as great as it sounds? Discuss.

To keep things realistic, let's just say this "world" is here on Earth, and all resources in question are those on our planet.

twocows
August 13th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Ignoring the logistics, it seems like it would be a pretty cool place.

Black Ice
August 13th, 2011, 05:24 PM
If all people are inherently good like you said, then yes. No one would try to take advantage of anything.

That's actually pretty hard to imagine. Like, impossible. How would people handle competition?

2Cool4Mewtwo
August 13th, 2011, 05:48 PM
The thought of this is making my mind blow into pieces. I cannot imagine what would happen....

Pym
August 13th, 2011, 06:28 PM
well, this isn't possible. it is in our nature as humans to take and take, but not give. taking would quickly overtake the giving and we would all get into a giant war, that we have no money to fund and thus, we're in major trouble.

but it would suck either way.

- // Pym

G.U.Y.
August 13th, 2011, 06:33 PM
If the people are inherently good, then yes, it's fantastic! But if one person who isn't comes along the system will crumble and the evil will spread like a plague. D:

well, this isn't possible. it is in our nature as humans to take and take, but not give. taking would quickly overtake the giving and we would all get into a giant war, that we have no money to fund and thus, we're in major trouble.

but it would suck either way.

- // Pym


Why did you not you read the first post? "The people here are inherently good and share everything without a second thought."

With inherently good people, war is unlikely. And since everything is free why would you need to fight to get it? Just go get it.

Myles
August 13th, 2011, 06:38 PM
Not ignoring the logistics, that wouldn't work very well.

Who works to get all this stuff in the first place? Whoever they are, they don't get anything that the people who don't do. Unless you were in the middle of nowhere, you would constantly lose all your stuff, even your most prized possessions.

marz
August 13th, 2011, 06:49 PM
Who works to get all this stuff in the first place? Whoever they are, they don't get anything that the people who don't do. Unless you were in the middle of nowhere, you would constantly lose all your stuff, even your most prized possessions.

Good question. The way I see it, in this world, only the people who want something done will get up and do it. A farmer will grow his own food to feed himself and will share his food with anyone who desires it.

Also, it's interesting you say prized possessions. Don't you think a world without trade or currency is a world without value? If you would give me anything I want, even your house, just because I asked for it, you can't be very fond of your house.

Pym
August 13th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Why did you not you read the first post? "The people here are inherently good and share everything without a second thought."

With inherently good people, war is unlikely. And since everything is free why would you need to fight to get it? Just go get it.

i did read the first post. i was just saying that it is impossible to have this happen in the first place. human nature wouldn't allow that to happen, even if we were all inherently good and share everything. someone would get greedy and ruin it. that's all it took for Caesar to take over, no?

and it's just like what you said, so i don't get why you called me out about it s:

- // Pym

icomeanon6
August 13th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Even if you're assuming that the obvious logistical problems don't apply (specifically, that nothing can be "free" if there is work required to produce it), I still wouldn't want to live in such a world. I would not give up the right to produce something by myself and have it be mine to give to whom I will, not to whomever asks for it.

Like most attractive concepts, I don't think that this one works when taken to the logical extreme. I live in a somewhat-liberal, somewhat-conservative neighborhood, and we share and give readily, but do not impose readily. Giving and sharing is commonplace and recognized as good, but it is never an obligation. And I disagree with the suggestion that people who are "inherently good" will share everything without a second thought. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." Sometimes it is best to withhold something from a friend and instead help address the underlying problem that they have.

Anders
August 13th, 2011, 07:13 PM
Is this type of world as great as it sounds?

No. It sounds really dumb to me and unappealing even ignoring that it doesn't make sense literally and imaginatively.

Myles
August 13th, 2011, 07:26 PM
Also, it's interesting you say prized possessions. Don't you think a world without trade or currency is a world without value? If you would give me anything I want, even your house, just because I asked for it, you can't be very fond of your house.

So it also means that the world becomes bland and without sentimentality?

icomeanon6
August 13th, 2011, 07:38 PM
So it also means that the world becomes bland and without sentimentality?
You're on to something important. Have you ever read a childrens' book called The Giver? It paints a surprisingly chilling picture of a distopia where love and sentiment is sacrificed for material well-being and the absence of pain and sadness. (And just to avoid confusion, the "Giver" in the title doesn't refer to the kind of giving we're talking about here.)

Impo
August 13th, 2011, 07:39 PM
Not ignoring the logistics, that wouldn't work very well.

Who works to get all this stuff in the first place? Whoever they are, they don't get anything that the people who don't do. Unless you were in the middle of nowhere, you would constantly lose all your stuff, even your most prized possessions.

I'd assume everyone has a job and they trade for everything with an equal worth.
Money's only valuable because we say it is. If the currency was rocks, a 50 dollar note would be worthless.

...does that make sense?

Myles
August 13th, 2011, 07:41 PM
The OP says there's no trade. A world with trade would be our own. That we have currency doesn't change that. It just organises it.

G.U.Y.
August 13th, 2011, 07:42 PM
i did read the first post. i was just saying that it is impossible to have this happen in the first place. human nature wouldn't allow that to happen, even if we were all inherently good and share everything. someone would get greedy and ruin it. that's all it took for Caesar to take over, no?

and it's just like what you said, so i don't get why you called me out about it s:

- // Pym


You're not understanding the entire point of this thread. This situation is under the circumstances where human nature is not what it is. Saying "Well, human nature is.." is completely irrelevant.

Chikara
August 13th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Nope.

No one would ever learn the value of a dollar. No one would know what it's like to be without. That kind of world would be Hell on Earth for me, seeing as I actually enjoy working hard for the things I want. That feeling you get after getting something YOU worked hard for is a great one.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
August 13th, 2011, 08:11 PM
Objectively? It's a good place. Would humans enjoy it? That's an entirely different story and one not worth debate since their nature is clearly altered in a vague manner.

Not all good things make you happy and or are enjoyable. Just like how some people say they'd hate a perfect world. Same concept.

Cassino
August 13th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Easy enough for me to imagine.
Such a world would be incredibly uneventful and uniform, lending toward an ultimately satisfactory but worthless existence for all concerned. I would like to have more to say but that seems to sum it up for now.

Diddy Kong
August 13th, 2011, 11:10 PM
It works if you just relate it to goods, but it's almost impossible to relate it to services and jobs. If a guy works on a farm to create the crops everyone gets for free, what compensation does he get for his work? You can't say he receives the crop as payment for his work, because he's already getting it for free along with the rest of the population. So what does he get for his work? And if he doesn't get anything, what purpose does it serve him to do the work if he doesn't get anything for it?

And to continue with this, what compensation would be given to carpenters and construction workers that build homes? I certainly wouldn't enjoy building a house and being told, "You did this for free", as that is a hard and tiring job. If the "if you want it, all you have to do is go find/get it" concept is in play, then how would we expect an elderly, wheelchair-bound person to build an entire home for himself, if he wants a house and can't pay someone else to do it for him? I guess something could be worked out to get assistance, but if the workers don't get anything for their work, what's to say they won't only put in 50% of the effort they would have if they were receiving some form of pay?

I don't feel like everyone being inherently good would change the fact that someone would want some compensation for labor. There's a philosophy in our own world that humans are "inherently good", so if people believe that currently when our world is very much riddled with bad and evil, I can't imagine the proposed "inherently good" world would function much differently than the current one we live in, except there'd be no theft as you can get things for free.. If we mean to say the people in this new world are completely good, with no ill thoughts or selfishness, then I suppose that'd be a different ball game.

But if we restrict the idea to just goods, then I suppose it can work. If you want an iPod, you can go get it for free, but whoever built that iPod is going to want a valid form of payment, as would anyone else, so either there'd need to be something to give to people for their work, which may as well be called "currency" if that's what people get for doing a service. You want it to be a world where there's no currency or trade, but it almost seems impossible to imagine such a thing is possible without someone being taken advantage of or at some sort of disadvantage. So I suppose in theory, it sounds great. But in practice, I find it'd be hard to accomplish.

twocows
August 14th, 2011, 06:27 AM
well, this isn't possible. it is in our nature as humans to take and take, but not give. taking would quickly overtake the giving and we would all get into a giant war, that we have no money to fund and thus, we're in major trouble.

but it would suck either way.
- // Pym

Ignoring the fact that you're completely missing the point of the thread (which assumes people wouldn't do that), I resent your suggestion that people are incapable of sharing and doing good. I think people are, as a whole, morally upstanding and not greedy as you suggest.

Freedom Fighter N
August 14th, 2011, 02:26 PM
*A bar, somewhere. Me sitting near a young girl.. I mean lady, what is this, lolicon? Who would let a girl into a bar anyway. I also wonder how horrible her driving skills would be after leaving it.*
Me: You have a nice body, young lady. Ahh, what I would do to it if I could..
She: Hm? Did you say something?
Me: Nah, nothing. Keep drinking, so you'll get drunk and I'll bring to my house and it wouldn't count as taking advantage of your kindness.
She: No, you can take it, I insist!
Me: PARADISE.


..Nah, I can't see that happening.

Yoshikko
August 14th, 2011, 03:43 PM
If people are good, as you say, I suppose that it would work, objectively. But in that situation, there would also develop rules. The idea is that everything is for free - the idea of sharing. If this is the mindset, you could quickly convert that to having to share, because if this is how it is, it is supposed to be, and stay this way. This means that a possible rule could be, that sharing is mandatory. This means, that not sharing, is against the rules. If someone would want to be an individual, and keep their possessions to themselves (which wouldn't happen if if was perfect, as you described it, but still), they would be considered an outcast, or someone with independent thoughts, a rule breaker, and they would have to be punished for breaking the law. Is this starting to sound like nationalism?

What I'm trying to say is that, even in such a world, there would exist rules. If there would be rules, it means that they can also be broken, and obviously rule breakers, will be punished. And again that would be a world with restrictions, so it wouldn't at all be perfect.

But objectively, it would be good. It's just not realistic.

Captain Fabio
August 14th, 2011, 03:52 PM
Regardless of how good people are, it is human nature to have a dark side and for people to take advantage of others. But, even if that wasn't a possibility, I think people would be ungrateful and not respect their property.
If you want something, you would normally work for it and you would be grateful for what you own and what others own around you.
The idea of a world where people wouldn't be grateful for anything sounds horrible.

Esper
August 14th, 2011, 08:40 PM
I like this idea. When I'm not using something common I just give it to someone else who wants it since I don't have to worry about getting another one. Like it would be great if I needed a bicycle every once in a while. I think I've heard about cities that do just that (with bicycles, I mean, not with everything of course). It seems like a needs-based place rather than a wants-based one. Plus people are nice. I don't see why it would be bland if you're happy (i.e., you get pleasure) from giving.

Renii
August 15th, 2011, 05:30 AM
That kind of world would be unfair.

I'm against the human tendency to "take" everything, but "giving" everything would be just as ridiculous.
You should earn what you own, what you have, material goods or otherwise.
I respect what I own, I take good care of everything. I can't stand it if someone touches it, makes it dirty, spoils it, breaks it. People do that, you know. I can't imagine sharing what I own with everyone.

I'm a selfish ****