The assumptions are deliberately simple. I also stated that by modifying income-dependent tax rates, it is possible to have the resulting incomes roughly match the current situation. And this calculation can be made for any given society, provided a social security system is possible at all. The difference, then, lies in the edge cases; most importantly, the transition between welfare receivers and the working population. In most social security systems, if you have a small income (less than welfare level), payments you receive from the state are reduced so that you end up with the same amount you would have if you didn't have an income - so for example, suppose the welfare level would be $1000 / month, and I'd be offered a job that paid 500; my choices would then be between working for 1000 dollars, or not working for the same 1000 dollars. If, however, you give everyone the basic 1000 dollars, and tax the rest, I'd still see some revenue from the work - not the full 500 dollars, but maybe 250.

That's not socialism. Socialism and government are mutually exclusive. If you don't agree, substitute 'socialism' for 'anarchy' - but then other incorrect associations are going to pop up, so there's kind of an impasse there: everytime someone comes up with a nice catchy word for a society where people voluntarily cooperate, someone else takes the word, institutionalizes it, and then uses it as an ideological excuse for yet another oppressive, greed-driven system. And saying that capitalism has 'its problems' is kind of an understatement.

If you're allowed to state what your abilities are, naturally every little hangnail or bit of tiredness will "reduce your ability", and if Mr. Rich has a 40 inch TV then you need one too.

Long ago, in a society, where being retarded was a norm, a retard said: "All people are by their very nature retards and this will never change."
Every retard seemed to agree.

Well, "truly altruistic society" is probably too general a term, as is your statement about "nature". So no, I don't know any "truly altruistic society".
Humans will never be angels. But, do you know any "truly selfish society"? They will probably not be pure wolves either.
I think it's just no use to talk using these generalisations or making any oversimplifying general statements about human nature. My point was that you're never able to see human nature in a "pure" form, because humans always seem to live in societies, which obviously influence the way they "are".
But exactly this fact, that we have lived in "societies" or groups for ages, which is quite proven, does at least show that we are quite social after all.

However, it seems to be a different thing with conflicts between groups. But, whatever. Just don't generalise things as you see them, please, especially as the last 250 years or so of industrialisation/society as we know it are quite short compared... you know.

As to your explanation of money:

Ever heard about credits? I have heard, they are even connected with a financial crisis...
But ...yes, I see: There's still too much trust involved! We need more money instead!

The problem is that while most people are good in that they wouldn't rip off their friends and family, they have no problems taking advantage of a government endorsed social program because in their opinion somebody outside their social circle is paying for it.

There are definitely cultural differences among different countries, but I wouldn't make a sweeping generalization based on one person's story.

I know many people here who would return a wallet with cash, and I also know people who wouldn't. But a person who might return a wallet may not mention anything when a cashier accidentally forgets to scan some item they are purchasing. (Yet, they might wait in line for an hour at a service desk to complain if they were overcharged by a penny...)

Every system of governance seems to lead to tyranny. The solution seems to be to educate people to "reject" simplistic and non-factual/linguistic notions such as "isness", the fallacy of aristotelian logic.
Primed to the E.
Mystics throughout human history have suggested that the fact we are all collectively the universe operating, sometimes called gOd/VALIS, and that we are not excusively these material forms (though I hesitate to even contemplate existance without the synergistic interplay of all of the components operating simulatenously).
I am the Walrus.
When we begin to appreciate these things maybe we will seem to begin to understand the proposition, "there is nothing wrong with the world, we are just having a strange conversation", and dialectics will flourish as an artform.
Then rather than obsessing about the tickets, and representations of wealth and resources, maybe we will be able to unlock its' fuller potential to make stuff happen, and spread happiness and greater liberation from the material condition, that we share and all experience.
At least that is what my brain seems to tell me.

I'm guilty of taking advantage of mistakes made by others, both government, corporate and individual alike. Face to face with a cashier I'll point it out, but I've had extra items shipped to my doorstep, multiple credits to my card when only one charge was made, and other small things. However, I've also been screwed over by corporations, so that makes me feel less guilt about it.

I do know it's frowned upon by most, but perspective boils down to the attitude of the people who surround you. Given that I do believe in a sort of Karmic force operating through the universe, it would make sense for me to report such mistakes, but the people who surround me would find it so bizarre.

Of course; there is still crime in South Korea.

Alright, perhaps my negative assumptions about people finding wallets are unfounded.

It's a good thing.

I don't want to go back to live my life as a tribe member in Amazon. Primitive economies don't scale.

No, my argument is:

• there hasn't been a successful large-scale attempt at socialism

• socialism doesn't work

• capitalism has its problems too

• let's improve capitalism to work for everyone

  
  
  Quote:

  Software used to be open source long before people invented the very concept of closed-source software.

  But not all software was open source. There was also commercial software.

  
  
  Quote:

  What makes you think people would stop writing software just because nobody pays them?

  Would you spend 10 hours of your day working hard for free?

  
  
  Quote:

  Do you seriously believe that the only way for mankind to survive is to sell each other things, despite the fact that for over 90% of our species' existence, we have done just fine without doing so?

  Markets exist for at least 5,000 years. The ancient Sumerians had trade with neighboring nations. Mankind's huge progress came largely from trade.

  
  
  Quote:

  Do you really believe that even though the concept of software itself is probably less than a century old, and the first computers of any practical use at all were built less than 70 years ago, closed-source software is a requirement for keeping us all fed?

  Being able to be compensated for your work in order to be fed is a requirement for everything, not just software.

  
  
  Quote:

  Hey, even the concept of employment is just about three centuries old, less than 1% of the history of homo sapiens sapiens.

  Wrong. Slaves were employees too. They worked for their owners.

  
  
  Quote:

  If all software were FOSS, I'd still have a job. I build custom software; clients pay for it not because we're cheaper than shrink-wrap, but because no shrink-wrap solutions exist that meet the clients' needs. We use FOSS tools and building blocks, not because they're cheaper, but because they're better suited for the task (and occasionally, they are not, and we use closed-source components instead, but this is rare). People pay me for bringing the software they need into existence, not for allowing them to copy my ideas.

  Ok then. Can you send me your list of clients and your software sources? I can believe I can do better than you, and my company would need a few good projects right now.

  
  
  Trezker said:

  Here in Sweden

  Sweden has sociodemocracy, not socialism.

  
  
  Tobias Dammers said:

  The maths part is fine. Instead of paying a base income to only those who need it (and discouraging any efforts of picking up a low-income job), give everyone the guaranteed base income, and raise income taxes to compensate.

  Your lack of knowledge of economics is amazing, to say the least. Money represents labor, you know? it's not something that you print it. Money represents the value of products and services available for consumption. Giving everyone a base income will soon turn money into worthless paper. The value that has been created worldwide comes from work. Without working, there is no value. If people get a base income as you suggest, they will stop producing, and then there would be no value in anything, in the long run.

  
  
  Matthew Leverton said:

  and the government just gives you everything you need.

  Actually, the government gives you almost nothing. In the USSR, people had to share their homes with 10 other families, eat meat once in 6 months, use water and electricity a few hours a day, etc. The poorness of those people is still visible, if you visit ex-soviet countries.

But it started as one. And then some people thought they were more important than others, and the revolution went the way of the dodo (bird).

Same thing happened in Cuba and North Korea.

But socialism wasn't the cause of the poverty, a dictatorship was. This means the resources weren't divided properly like in real socialism.

You do have a point that there hasn't been a single large-scale socialistic society yet, due to the selfish nature of man.