Turn on thread page Beta

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    Given the popularity of medicine courses and the aims of all the wannabe doctors I know (to help people rather than getting rich), I really don't think it would result in a shortage of doctors. However, that's purely speculative. The only way to find it is to try it.
    Why would production suddenly be cut by a third?
    And Vlad, the society would start off with doctors. If we started to run short of doctors, we would recognise that problem and do something to combat it.
    Like what?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Like what?
    Force people to become doctors against their will of course. Isn't that what socialism/communism is really about?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I said we could still produce "luxury" goods. Why shouldn't we?
    Of course some doctors do it for the money, but there is also a lot of people who want to become doctors - or even who are doctors - for reasons beyond the financial incentives.
    If you want to malign ideas without justification, please do so elsewhere. As I have already stated, this can only work if people choose to take part in it.
    As for dealing with a potential doctor shortage, I don't immediately know. The first idea that comes to me is to offer incentives for doctors, but I don't think that's really in keeping with the spirit of this society. I blame Blairism. We could do something (advertising and so on, discussion in schools...) to raise the profile of doctors. This raises another issue: I would not be running this society by myself. We would listen to ideas from people and see what seems like the best plan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    I said we could still produce "luxury" goods. Why shouldn't we?
    Of course some doctors do it for the money, but there is also a lot of people who want to become doctors - or even who are doctors - for reasons beyond the financial incentives.
    But for a poor student, the choice will be simple - you can become a checkout assistant right now and get what you need or you can stay poor for 10 years and then get paid teh same amount. There would be about 10 people training as doctors in the country.

    What do you propose to do for the unemployed?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    I said we could still produce "luxury" goods. Why shouldn't we?
    Of course some doctors do it for the money, but there is also a lot of people who want to become doctors - or even who are doctors - for reasons beyond the financial incentives.
    If you want to malign ideas without justification, please do so elsewhere. As I have already stated, this can only work if people choose to take part in it.
    As for dealing with a potential doctor shortage, I don't immediately know. The first idea that comes to me is to offer incentives for doctors, but I don't think that's really in keeping with the spirit of this society. I blame Blairism. We could do something (advertising and so on, discussion in schools...) to raise the profile of doctors. This raises another issue: I would not be running this society by myself. We would listen to ideas from people and see what seems like the best plan.
    How can you provide an incentive if pay is no way connected to the amount or type of work performed?

    If everyone gets what they need, and there is no money, how would they get luxury goods (which they don't need)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    As for dealing with a potential doctor shortage, I don't immediately know. The first idea that comes to me is to offer incentives for doctors, but I don't think that's really in keeping with the spirit of this society. I blame Blairism. We could do something (advertising and so on, discussion in schools...) to raise the profile of doctors. This raises another issue: I would not be running this society by myself. We would listen to ideas from people and see what seems like the best plan.
    So you admit that there is a big potential problem with your idea, but you don't know what to do about it right now. So you'll just wait for someone else to solve it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    But for a poor student, the choice will be simple - you can become a checkout assistant right now and get what you need or you can stay poor for 10 years and then get paid teh same amount. There would be about 10 people training as doctors in the country.

    What do you propose to do for the unemployed?
    Why would someone want to be a student in the first place?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We won't have "poor students", everyone will have everything he needs as long as he works to the best of his abilities. Do you not know any students who like learning for its own sake? Or doctors who like practising for its own sake?
    What unemployed? If you can't work, the state will provide for you. If you can work, you will. If you refuse to work, you clearly shouldn't be there.
    Bismarck, that's why I don't like the incentive thing. Awareness- and profile-raising would be better. Given that even now, in our capitalist society, people choose to work as volunteers (yes, that's right, doing something for nothing), how can you even imagine that people will not want to do their best in order to carry on living in this society where you get everything you need?

    Edit: I don't admit there is a big potential problem (the doctor shortage) as I don't think that will happen (reasons already stated), I'm simply trying to answer your questions based on hypothetical situations.
    As for luxury goods, again I'm not sure. Back to bread and roses, what do people "need"? One could argue that we need entertainment - so we could have books (public libraries), music (free concerts, free downloadable music), the internet, film, etc..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    We won't have "poor students", everyone will have everything he needs as long as he works to the best of his abilities. Do you not know any students who like learning for its own sake? Or doctors who like practising for its own sake?
    What percentage do those people make up? What do you do to the people who don't want to give up years of their lives in exchange for nothing?

    Given that even now, in our capitalist society, people choose to work as volunteers (yes, that's right, doing something for nothing), how can you even imagine that people will not want to do their best in order to carry on living in this society where you get everything you need?
    How many people are willing to work 40 hours a week as volunteers? 100%? Instead of thinking about a utopia, how about you start taking human nature into account? Until you do that, your utopia is not only impossible but it extremely dangerous, as we have seen on numerous occassions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    We won't have "poor students", everyone will have everything he needs as long as he works to the best of his abilities. Do you not know any students who like learning for its own sake? Or doctors who like practising for its own sake?
    What unemployed? If you can't work, the state will provide for you. If you can work, you will. If you refuse to work, you clearly shouldn't be there.
    Bismarck, that's why I don't like the incentive thing. Awareness- and profile-raising would be better. Given that even now, in our capitalist society, people choose to work as volunteers (yes, that's right, doing something for nothing), how can you even imagine that people will not want to do their best in order to carry on living in this society where you get everything you need?
    You have an overly idealistic view of human nature. Most people, when faced with a free ride will hop on it. I, for example, would much prefer to laze about, watching tv and reading up on relatively useless things like ancient greek history. Look at the number of people who abuse the current system. What do you think will happen in yours?

    Sure there would be a very minute proportion of people who will do things out of the goodness of their heart (or rather the desire for the warm fuzzy feeling) but the great majority will do their best to do as little as possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "The people who don't want to give up years of their lives in exchange for nothing" (well, not actually nothing. Prestige? Respect of others? An interesting, varied, challenging career?) don't have to, they can have the boring, easy jobs. Or not enter this society.
    Human nature is altruistic. As an humanist, I believe that, given the chance, we do the best we can for our fellow-humans.
    People are willing to work as volunteers, and would be prepared to do so instead of a full-time job were the need to earn money taken from them.
    I'm not thinking about a utopia. I'm thinking about a society which could be established and successfully run.

    Edit, on reading Vlad's post: Then we could have entrance requirements. You would have to justify wanting to take part in this. And justify why you wanted such and such a job, instead of something more challenging.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    Edit, on reading Vlad's post: Then we could have entrance requirements. You would have to justify wanting to take part in this. And justify why you wanted such and such a job, instead of something more challenging.
    And if a person fails this test, would you force them to work against their will? How hard is it to realize that the second the government is allowed to make these decisions on our behalf is the second that we lose all freedoms and become pawns of the bureaucratic elite?

    Why not actually study about communism and capitalism instead of listening to propaganda or believing that you can change human nature?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There is no coercion involved. You would dicuss your career plans with teachers, parents, friends, etc. - not faceless government officials - and they would encourage you to do the best you can.
    What freedoms do you want?
    I'm not particularly interested in studying communism and capitalism, I find ideology dull and I have other things to do with my time. I'm not trying to change human nature. Like I said, I believe that human nature is basically good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    "The people who don't want to give up years of their lives in exchange for nothing" (well, not actually nothing. Prestige? Respect of others? An interesting, varied, challenging career?) don't have to, they can have the boring, easy jobs. Or not enter this society.
    Human nature is altruistic. As an humanist, I believe that, given the chance, we do the best we can for our fellow-humans.
    People are willing to work as volunteers, and would be prepared to do so instead of a full-time job were the need to earn money taken from them.
    I'm not thinking about a utopia. I'm thinking about a society which could be established and successfully run.
    People are only slightly altruistic - altruism is not even theoretically possible in nature.

    I'm not altruistic and I'm sure that there are many like me. What do you propose to do with us?

    I think your society will turn to crime because it is in people's nature to want to be better than their neighbours. Thus if they cannot be richer than others by honest methods they will start trying to do so by dishonest ones, and they will succeed.
    Edit, on reading Vlad's post: Then we could have entrance requirements. You would have to justify wanting to take part in this. And justify why you wanted such and such a job, instead of something more challenging.
    hmmm.... a bit dictatorial that, isn't it? What if people are just too stupid to become doctors? Will you excuse them from such high aspirations? In that case wouldn't it allow people to pretend to be incapable of becoming doctors just so they can have an easy life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    There is no coercion involved. You would dicuss your career plans with teachers, parents, friends, etc. - not faceless government officials - and they would encourage you to do the best you can.
    What freedoms do you want?
    I'm not particularly interested in studying communism and capitalism, I find ideology dull and I have other things to do with my time. I'm not trying to change human nature. Like I said, I believe that human nature is basically good.
    Well, if there is no coercion involved, I'll say "screw you" to everyone trying to encourage me to be a lawyer and instead will become a painter. I can't draw and have no idea about art, but at least I'd be trying hard so I'll earn as much as a master artist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Like I said, I believe that human nature is basically good

    Why do we lock our doors than?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Force people to become doctors against their will of course. Isn't that what socialism/communism is really about?
    Thats ridiculous and you know it is, im a socialist and i have no desire to force things on to people.

    A lot of societys problems are caused by inequality and a lack of compassion - socialism would provide people with what they needed and would encourage people to care about people, the effect would not be immediate but in time a culture of compassion and equality would replace the current culture of money and inequality.

    Russian communism was effectively state capitalism because the state centrally controlled everything and everyone was not equal, the state replace the market in exploiting people, Marx would have turned in his grave.

    Communists believe that the state would wither away, whereas socialists tend to be more moderate and beleive more in state provision, though also in democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Thats ridiculous and you know it is, im a socialist and i have no desire to force things on to people.

    A lot of societys problems are caused by inequality and a lack of compassion - socialism would provide people with what they needed and would encourage people to care about people, the effect would not be immediate but in time a culture of compassion and equality would replace the current culture of money and inequality.
    It would not encourage the middle class, who will see that they are already being forced to look after poor people through extortionate taxation, so why do anything else? It would, I believe, lead people to become less charitable.
    Russian communism was effectively state capitalism because the state centrally controlled everything and everyone was not equal, the state replace the market in exploiting people, Marx would have turned in his grave.
    How many times do people have to tell you? There is no such thing as State capitalism.

    Oh, and for your information, the bolsheviks tried this idea of real communism with no money, when the currency was made worthless by inflation and they decided not to try to stabilise it. This failed to work spectacularly when people started inventing their own forms of currency through illegal barter like cigarettes and lighters. Consequently the government had to abandon the whole idea and set up free-ish markets to feed the population.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Thats ridiculous and you know it is, im a socialist and i have no desire to force things on to people.

    A lot of societys problems are caused by inequality and a lack of compassion - socialism would provide people with what they needed and would encourage people to care about people, the effect would not be immediate but in time a culture of compassion and equality would replace the current culture of money and inequality.
    "Inequality is of infinite value"

    You seem to have this notion in you head that just mentioning inequality somehow means its a bad thing? I think inequality (in terms of outcome) is wonderful because it allows the progress within society (as has been mentioned before) and the development. You also make a rather grand assertion that it would lead to a 'culture of compassion' well surely, the reality is that these people who were better skilled/worked harder would resent those who were getting all these extra benefits despite not being as talented.

    I admit that the current society doesn't have much compassion, generally, but neither would your system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In general, I don't think money is the only measure of worth that people use and many people- once they get past a certain [alright, an uncertain] amount of money use money just to measure how much they are respected or admired. I've always thought it would be an interesting experiment to award special renewable honorifics to people for performing useful activities- say that whoever paid the most income tax in a year can call themselves the Duke of Such-and-such and expect people to give way before him and thank him for his munificence.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

4,487

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.