Redefining Wealth and Progress - My utopic vision.

in #hive-15385028 days ago


HIVE LEARNERS, COSTV.png


A society where wealth is equally distributed and individuals have a limited income would foster a more equitable, peaceful, and innovative world.

This is a publication based on the suggested topic proposed in the Hive Learners community through their discord, which on this occasion is Maximum Earnings.


DIVISORFIRMAHIVE502.png

"The greatest good is the greatest number."
<< Jeremy Bentham >>



pexels-suju-5140459.jpg
Photo by Susanne Jutzeler, suju-foto

The topic that occupies us on this occasion is quite controversial as well as it is the opinion that I have of them.

To begin with, I want to enter the point saying that from my point of view people should have a limit of the amount of money they can earn.

This is simply because having limited the amount of income that each one can have, the person knows that he will be able to have time to dedicate himself to other things that are of his interest, whether it is like the arts, science, or any other topic that allows him to contribute to society and progress as a human being and as a person. This in the long run will lead society to evolve to have a better and balanced environment.

If we maintain the current system where each person can have the amount of money they want and enrich themselves without limits, it will continue to happen the same thing will happen in the future.

What is happening at the moment is that only a few will have the ability to enrich themselves while the rest, let's say 95% of people will be busy surviving, not having time to deal with science, arts, creativity, and really be able to fulfill their dreams because they will only be spending the rest of their lives focused on accumulating wealth.

And I think this is not the right way to be able to evolve as a society and as individuals.

I would support a system that will limit the wealth and the amount of earnings that each person can have and that, on the contrary, promote that people can dedicate themselves to the things they like most in their lives.

I am sure that a system based on these principles will create the society of the future.


pexels-brett-sayles-5154325.jpg
Photo by Brett Sayles

Imagine only the opportunity to have a society where people will not be worried about what they are going to eat tomorrow, where they know they are going to have guaranteed food and they will have the same opportunities to study, to live, to have water, to have electricity, to have access to a facility, to a health system that will protect them, that they will have a good quality of life, that they will have this guaranteed because the state guarantees that everyone will have the same level of income, that there is a social and economic security that will allow this to work in this way.

So I firmly believe, unlike what most of the colleagues have expressed in their publications about this topic, that there must be a limit in the earnings that are obtained. Because in this way, we are going to have a better society where the resources are going to be distributed equally and this from my point of view is going to make society move forward.

It is going to make everyone enjoy better services, better quality of life, and as I said at the beginning, they will be able to have more time to create, invent, and take us to the society of the future.

I completely agree that this system is going to work and I am sure that it would be very interesting to see how this model works, to see a society where people are not worried because they have everything they need, and see how it evolves.

A society of this type, peaceful people living and doing what they like the most, because they know that they have their life secured.

Not a person who is going to fight all his life to pay a loan from an apartment, and when this old man who does not have the capacity to work for the different diseases and who does not have access to a health system, because he does not have the economic resources, can be calm, because he knows that he is going to have access to a good old age, he is going to have food, he is going to have a house, and they are going to take care of him quietly.

So I think that a system where the profits are limited gives to be much more positive than a system like the one we currently have where the profits are not limited.



DIVISORFIRMAHIVEgrande.png


This is my black cat "manclar", this account is to honor his dead (it happened years ago).


firmanclaravatar50.png


Credits:

Thumbnail maded using Bing AI and edited at Canva.com
The text dividers were made by me using aseprite

Posted Using InLeo Alpha

Sort:  

The issue here is humans, can we ever have a society that everyone is treated equally. Even if we manage to implement a policy that limits the amount of wealth that can be accumulated by a person, do you think such policy will stand?

Humans will always be humans, striving to exercise power over others either through wealth or any other means necessary.

That is the problem, that is why these utopias are destined to fail, because precisely as a race, we are destined to become extinct. The ambition for power and wealth will always have more weight in minds, it is difficult to change people's mentality, and by the time that change comes, we will have become extinct.

I have a similar opinion, I don't think the world needs competition and rewarding the most “innovative”. There is plenty of technology and resources for all mankind to live with dignity.

When it is justified that, for example, a professional tennis player earns a lot for what he generates, it should be said that this man who runs after a little ball in his underpants does not generate any wealth, he only hoards what others produce such as the clothes he wears, the cars he drives or the mansions he owns.

And I am not talking about planning, I am quite sure that society is capable of self-governing itself and distributing wealth fairly without the need for a bureaucracy to “distribute” wealth or work.

A hug @manclar

I totally agree, the distribution of resources must be equitable, thinking about the future of people, the elderly, the quality of life of everyone and future generations. And not that a "few" monopolize wealth, but well, you already know that I am a crazy person, an idealist, and that the "majority" prefers to lock themselves in the idea that they are going to have "unlimited" profits "forever", when It is very clear that this is a big lie, a manipulation, a bait that they give us so that people pursue a dream and continue working for the rich (sorry, but today I woke up very conspiratorial my friend).

I like you conspiranoid, my friend @manclar, and within conspiracy, what to publish today?

Oh and by the way, take !PIMP bitch! 😀

Well, this is a beautiful way to approach the topic from. But however anyone sees it, I believe everyone should have rewards for his hard work. If the rich keep working, it is unjust to peg their earning. The poor on the other hand, if they do they best to raise above the status quo, they should be rewarded for their hard work too. Comparison or trying to oppress the poor should not be called to mind. Even the ones who needs time to focus on other aspects of life that they cherish, if such creativity gets appreciated, they can also reap from it. In all, I enjoyed reading from a different point of view, well done

The problem is that as long as we continue to have a system that grants rewards based on the amount of work/effort, this difference will continue to exist. On the other hand, if the proportion of work/effort is the same for everyone, people will be calmer. and have a society focused on the things that really matter, and not on amassing power or capital. A change of mentality is needed, but I am convinced that the majority is not ready to take that step, which is why I always say that we are condemned to extinction as a reason.

We must unite the differences and all work in the same proportion for a common well-being (it sounds like a communist or socialist speech, but believe me it is not, it is simply a sustainable idea for a better future).

I hope this makes sense to you, or not? =)

You really do make sense anyways. Everyone is entitled to different opinions. Only that it is often easier said than done. I doubt if in reality someone would like to see his wealth capped with " you can never exceed this point, relax, play with other things and give way for others". He hasn't hindered anyone in the first place though but if on the contrary he was able to help others and not flaunt his wealth nor mock the less privileged, if in the process of making money, he was able to balance it with the science and art you mentioned, to me, he is good to keep swimming in affluence.
All the same, there are two sides to a coin. You still have your valid points