...to each according to his need (Score 1)

So, you've written a nice neo-Socialist manifesto, but are too shy to self-identify it as Socialism. The sticky wicket is defining "need" - we humans are very good at pursuing satisfaction of our own, and very bad at defining application of the concept for others. Notice that Marx put it in the passive voice. He didn't assign no owner...but from the lab, the result of those judgments has always been bound and inverted scales of repression, withdrawal and violence...followed by ultimate recognition the system sucks and should be abandoned, followed by fading memory of that recognition and a renaissance of the original philosophy. It's kind of cool...you're part of the experiment! My gentle recommendation is that you noodle on the following implications and build a truly novel manifesto: Who should define your need? Why shouldn't it be you? As humans have proven terrible at the discipline collectively (for example, we got an 'F' in Collectives), wouldn't it make (supremely ironic) sense that a robot or an algorithm based on analytics of 'similar' patterns (where you are an instance of a pattern) govern the determination? Are you willing to pledge unwavering subservience to an imposed assessment of your need, especially one based solely on quantitative measures? If you introduce a qualitative component, isn't it poisoned by the risk of subjective bias? Can you get everyone else to do the same thing without force or elimination of dissenters? What about the troubling implications of mob rule or the tyranny of the majority? Practically speaking, if it's not you that controls that definition, won't QoL reducing scenarios quickly emerge? Won't you start to cheat a system you deem inequitable? I RTFM. Kudos to Ford for having the courage to broach and analyze the topic. Jeers to him for failing to produce a coherent framework of scenarios and faltering on credible presentation of the implications. Goal kick...