What we really need is a maximum wage; a maximum amount of annual income -- from any source -- that a person can make. This maximum amount should be tied to the median income or some such so that if the rich and powerful want to increase their earning limit, they have to do things that will benefit all of society instead of hurting all of society.
Too much of the economy's lifeblood (i.e. money) is sequestered in the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy, which a) stalls the economy, and b) gives a disproportionate amount of socio-political power to those individuals. The current vast difference in wealth is as damaging to the human race as things like racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc. (if not more so), and people really need to realize this.
There is an entire class of people that most of society never sees, but which has a profound impact on their lives...and our current economic setup promotes sociopaths and psychopaths into this class. These people have the economic power and the self-centered focus to literally destroy the planet. This situation has to be rectified.
Is the design that is selected going to fly to space?
...the current system...[does not guarantee] distribution to the places best or helpful for society.
And it shouldn't, as people disagree on what that means and where those are.
They do? Don't most people want a place to live, food to eat, some entertainment, and some support, at the very least?
In situations where manipulative marketing and divisive politicking hasn't rotted people's brains, people overwhelming agree on at least the basics of where at least some resources should be distributed for the benefit of society.
This guy had a lot of great ideas, including:
- Guaranteed basic income linked to national average
- A cap on annual income
- A cap on personal wealth
- A cap on inheritance
Of course, he ended up getting assassinated and his program was purposefully run into the ground after his death.
And that's the real trick. The trouble is not coming up with great ideas that we know will work; the trouble is trying to implement them without getting murdered by the already-rich-and-powerful.
Link to Original Source
It's free in the sense that everyone can vote with their wallet
But that's not "free" as in "free market", as the parent just explained. You can't have a free market and copyright law at the same time. Copyright prevents you from "voting with your wallet" in the free market sense because it reduces the number of competitors to zero.
You better believe if a dude doesn't get anal and tells upgrayyd cinammon is gonna have a black eye.
Remember: the extra 'd' is for a double dose of his pimping.