- 17 Aug 2008 15:10
#1610018
Technocracy aims at abolishing money altogether and replacing it with energy credits.
Energy credits' purpose is to ensure that we do not use more energy (read: raw materials) than allocated for each citizen.
But energy credits will not solve the problems money solve for us: Controlling human behavior!
Money used as promoting healthy life-style
Candy is unhealthy and so are soft drinks.
They don't use much energy from our raw materials. In fact, there is plenty of sugar.
Scandinavian countries try to control sugar-consumption by placing heavy taxes on soft-drinks and candy. In some countries, like Denmark, more than 60 % of the price of a coke is tax in one way or another.
While I personally is against government-intervention in how I live my life, there are many who might see such taxes as neccessary. How would you respond to this?
Money used as a means of moderate punishment for less serious crimes
Fining is a very common thing in western europe. Speed tickets and other means of imposing moderate punishment for less serious crimes that are not serious enough to put you in jail.
Without money, the technocratic society will need to find other ways of imposing moderate punishment, such as corporal punishment when imprisonment is too much for less serious offences, but this will be very unpopular in the western world.
Money as a reward
The classical one you all dismiss by refering to a theory that says humans will work even if they are not rewarded economically.
But there are some jobs or tasks that people would not participate in, unless they are rewarded with extra material goods. Social acceptance and social prestige isn't enough here. I'm talking scientifical experiments on humans.
We can't avoid running scientific or medical experiments on humans. The only solution in a technocratic society to get enough human objects for experiments is a "science draft" much like conscription, where the government draw lots on all youngsters aging 18 to 25 for medical experiments. This will be very unpopular.
Energy credits' purpose is to ensure that we do not use more energy (read: raw materials) than allocated for each citizen.
But energy credits will not solve the problems money solve for us: Controlling human behavior!
Money used as promoting healthy life-style
Candy is unhealthy and so are soft drinks.
They don't use much energy from our raw materials. In fact, there is plenty of sugar.
Scandinavian countries try to control sugar-consumption by placing heavy taxes on soft-drinks and candy. In some countries, like Denmark, more than 60 % of the price of a coke is tax in one way or another.
While I personally is against government-intervention in how I live my life, there are many who might see such taxes as neccessary. How would you respond to this?
Money used as a means of moderate punishment for less serious crimes
Fining is a very common thing in western europe. Speed tickets and other means of imposing moderate punishment for less serious crimes that are not serious enough to put you in jail.
Without money, the technocratic society will need to find other ways of imposing moderate punishment, such as corporal punishment when imprisonment is too much for less serious offences, but this will be very unpopular in the western world.
Money as a reward
The classical one you all dismiss by refering to a theory that says humans will work even if they are not rewarded economically.
But there are some jobs or tasks that people would not participate in, unless they are rewarded with extra material goods. Social acceptance and social prestige isn't enough here. I'm talking scientifical experiments on humans.
We can't avoid running scientific or medical experiments on humans. The only solution in a technocratic society to get enough human objects for experiments is a "science draft" much like conscription, where the government draw lots on all youngsters aging 18 to 25 for medical experiments. This will be very unpopular.
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, free-trade, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.