This has already been done. It's known as Non-Aristotelian General Semantics. It's even possible to teach yourself how to speak this way. Intelligence agencies sometimes train operatives in it, because then the reports they make are more useful for intelligence analysis.
http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm
The level most people in the US live at is called "poverty". The amount of work that goes into food, transportation and clean water is incredibly small, compared to the amount of people it supports, and it could be made immensely more efficient if we weren't using technology that is 100 years old. The only thing a market creates is blind demand for more useless crap, while destroying the very firmament on which it operates. This libertarian "belief" in the benefits of markets is utterly contradicted by scientific evidence which shows that capitalism is the force that is destroying our environment, while extenuating the inequality between the rent-seeking and the rent-paying.
I'm sure your dad taught you to "work hard", but we don't live in the forest anymore. It's time for you to educate yourself about what would be beneficial for society as a whole, rather than believing in adages that (shockingly) uphold and entrench the advantages you have inherited from your birthplace and skin color.
Stop paying retail prices for everything. In a market based economy, we need everyone shopping, every week. But, in a resource based economy, we would build things to last longer, and design things that are more efficient. The cost is not the issue, it is the design of the product that is so wasteful. We need waste in this system, it is profitable. I'm sure you"ll ignore me as some quack. Too bad (for you and me), because this is the main problem with our society. Try reading the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy", if you don't understand what I am talking about.
I don't begin to pretend to understand the delusions that people are citing as reasons for supporting a "work" culture. Are the people who believe this rhetoric blind to the destruction that is being caused to the Earth by billions of people needing to "make money to live"?
Poachers do not poach because they are too stupid to understand the value of the life they are taking. They are poaching because that's the only way to provide the resources their family needs to survive. The same is true with every type of destructive behavior humanity is practicing in response to economic pressures. Children in mines and sweatshops, farmers burning down rainforests, or fishermen exhausting the endless ocean's bounty.
People need access to basic resources in order to survive and prosper. They need food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. Our monetary economic system CANNOT provide this to everyone, it is built on the scarcity of money, and it distributes this scarcity efficiently through the demand/market system. Until society steps up to the plate and implements a system where these needs are met, we are effectively living in middle age serfdom!
"Civilization" is a society where we recognize the needs of that society, and implement systems to meet those needs. What we have today is a free-market slavery system. You are enslaved to the bank that issues your currency against the "work" you will provide in the future. Your National ID number is your bond number, and your countries credit-worthiness is dependant on your productivity, en masse. Your money is a debt note, owed to those banks, issued to you by your financial reserve system.
Most of the beneficial work performed by the participants of society goes unpaid. Parenting, teaching, volunteering, caring about and helping your friends and neighbors, not vandalizing public spaces, reporting crimes, speaking out about abuses of power and educating your family and friends about social issues.
These things are the best things we do, and they are priceless.
The jobs you get paid to do, are because no one would do them unless they needed the money to survive. Maybe they are the things that didn't need doing in the first place.
I want to suggest that people who believe in this imaginary money system remove their head from their anus and find out what a resource-based economic system looks like, and why it is superior to any type of system that could ever be built through coercion.
"Most of the jobs constituting valuable contributions are going to be paid"
This is not the way things are. This sounds more like something a politician told you to believe. The most valuable workers in our economy are underpaid (farm workers, waitresses, teachers, etc.), if they aren't totally voluntary already. (parents and caregivers)
In truth, when everyone has to make an income to survive, it instills a type of desperation in a society just to produce enough value to pay that next installment. This type of motivation is what leads impoverished South Americans to destroy the largest rainforest on Earth, or African children to work in gold mines exposed to toxic mercury, dragline fisherman to deplete great oceans full of life, the list is endless. This is all the stupidity of "growing" the economy, while bankers and politicians end up being the only one's "enriched" while the planet is irreplacably decimated.
The most valuable workers in our economy are underpaid (farm workers, waitresses, teachers, etc.), if they aren't totally voluntary already. (parents and caregivers)
Your analysis is fatally flawed from this point. Teachers are valuable, and I feel they should be full-on professionals paid like we pay coders. Farm Workers and Wait Staff could be valuable, depending on what level of skill, diligence, and expertise they bring. Those two categories cover a very broad range of levels of expertise.
Parents and caregivers didn't start out as a part of the economic system. They also don't necessarily have to be paid. It has been noted that paying people to do what they'd do for free often has well known pathologies associated with it.
This type of motivation is what leads impoverished South Americans to destroy the largest rainforest on Earth, or African children to work in gold mines exposed to toxic mercury, dragline fisherman to deplete great oceans full of life, the list is endless.
This only shows that our world has incentives that are sometimes way out of whack. It doesn't then follow that the answer is basic income. Other societies have tried "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" with following drops in productivity.
Fresco was unique in that all of his designs were based on testable, quantifiable evidence based assessments of reality. His designs for cities ended up looking like "utopias" because he started at the evidence based engineering level and built up from there, not because he imagined a utopia and worked backwards from his "vision".
Most of the issues facing engineers when designing a city are issues with the way in which monetary economics works against efficient design, implementation of best practices, and sharing of resources. As cities and neighborhoods with attractive qualities of socialabilty become scarcer, gentrification leads to their destruction through over-valuation from increased market demand.
It is nigh impossible to build a "shining city on the hill", where there is opportunity and abundance and happiness, and expect that the rest of the world will sit idly by in their squalor and applaud the achievement.
Not entirely accurate, in my opinion. You should realize most issues brought up as arguments between left and right are publicized in order to substantiate a (mostly ficticious) divide between the left and right, and thereby prevent cooperation on instituting solutions that would likely disrupt established power structures.
I would have to argue also, that point 2 is somewhat incorrect. The cultural attributes of liberalism are more likely derived from television, which has many orders of magnitude more influence over people's thinking than any college or school has. Don't discount the social cues adopted by peer groups which influence one's behavior, also mostly imparted through television.
Perhaps your 3rd point is the most accurate of the stated reasons. But, even then, your final conclusion leaves me disturbed. There is no reason to distrust verifiable facts when they are presented, and I don't think right-wingers are any more prone to ignorance than left-wingers. What is rotten in the entire matter is that the industries attached to that science, and governments that employ science for the same reason, as a tool, with which to procure economic benefits from market participants.
All that I can suggest to anyone who wants to complain about people who do not trust vaccines, is to do something to make them more trustworthy. If they are so imperative to public health and safety, then why have a profit seeking corporation directing the implementation? The very track record of behavior by the pharmaceutical and agro-chemical industries make me question the very sanity of those who would promote thier products, let alone use them on themselves or their family.
