: Some more clarity: When we support the market, we do so voluntarily. We buy what we want and we sell what we want. If the seller can't sell anything, he does something else. This is not the common good, it is for the good of the people that produce what you buy. But you can only produce what may be sold within teh social networks of exchange, i.e. your proudction choices are limitted to what could be called the common good (rather it is effective demand, but the two are similar).
: Supporting the common good means involuntarily submitting all of your wealth so that what you work for is no longer yours, but many other peoples. You are suplied with what the government can give, and you have absolutely no choice in the matter.
No, supporting teh common good means voluntarilly working and producing for it, and taking what you feel you need, because everythign belongs to you anyway- and terhe would be no need for a government.
: When an owner of capital doesn't let you work, you find another capital owner that does.
Yes, but what if my skills are of no use to teh owners of capital in my country? What if I am an advanced Computer Scientist living in a very poor country? What if my skills are artistic? I can only work if I find An owner of capital to use them.
: Why would anyone produce anything if they didn't have to?
Because society would fall apart, and they'd lose their freedom, because its enjoyable, because you can win esteem and praise for your work, etc.
:Society progresses because people have to produce things, and they figure that they might as well do it well. If you have no incentive to produce, you will not produce. A few nice guys pull everyone's dead weight for a while, but then they start to drop like flies, and a different revolution takes place.
No, the incentive is there, the reward being praise. Are producers rewarded now, no, they get a measly wage, while the guy they work for gets all teh money- the wealth producers are poor, while the owners pof wealth are rich.
: OK, peoples needs decrease, as does their production. If people live off of the only the essentials, society will take a thousand years to move foward one year in advancement. Think what would happen if everyone in history though this way: We would all be living in our caves or tipis, we would hunt and gather for all of our short lives, 90% of us wouldn't be hear because of treatable diseases, etc. If society doesn't advance, we really have no reason to live.
Why is it necessarilly advance? And would people necessarilly consume less, or different? We would work and invent precisely because there is nothing better to do.
: I think that money should go to the workers. Workers are everyone that has a job. Those that don't have a job shouldn't get any of what those of us that work create.
But at teh moment money goes to them as own, not them as work- and who's to truly say what is useful work- caring for children is useful work, looking after teh old, etertaining folk, is useful work, currntly work is productive if it makes a fiscal profit for teh employer, rather would should be productive, because it pleases other people.
: I like that you want democracy and freedom, but only those that don't produce and those few that do produce that want this will vote this in, so it really can't be a democracy.
Why do you think so? And it can't happen until a vast majority want it.
:Also, if society's only incentive is to enhance the world at large, they won't do nearly as well as they would in a situation where they have something to gain from it.
They gain as a part of that world at large.
: Finally, you aren't really free if you can't escape(you said that it needs to be global).
I can't escape capitalism- die hard capitalists could fuck off and found a capitalist commune somewhere if they wanted, I wouldn't stop them.
