Take it, please, I insist.

[twocows]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ****