There ought to be a minimum wage and a minimum wealth, and taxes ought to be such that nobody enjoys more than twenty times that income or wealth.

Minimum wage $10 an hour, maximum wage $200 an hour. Minimum wealth a cot and a locker, maximum wealth twenty times that space.

You see how this works...

If the CEO of a company wants to own a big fat penthouse suite and be driven around in a limo, the lowest paid employees get comfortable suites in the same building, park their own utilitarian cars in the same garage, and ride the same elevator.

In this scenario those prone to hoarding wealth have a very strong incentive to make sure their own good fortune really does "trickle down."

The game playing stops. Everyone's kids go to the same schools, everyone shops in the same places, and everyone's lives are "real." Nobody exists in an insulated "bubble" of wealth.

What's that you say? It takes away "incentive???" Nonsense. Anyone who would pay an employee starvation wages while traveling through life first class is up to no good or has been corrupted by the system.

I can't respect that. They are all Justin Biebers, but worse, because they are not stupid kids.

Why should an economy have "dirty work?"

Jobs with "dirt" can be satisfying if the pay is good and the working conditions are friendly.

Keeping hospitals and patients clean might be very satisfying work for someone who wants to work in medicine but is not academically inclined. Repairing plumbing is often filthy work, same with all sorts of agricultural work.

The worst jobs I've ever had were never "dirty" because of dirt, they were dirty because the employer or work culture was utterly rotten. Being a cop is a necessary job, but nobody wants "dirty" cops, right? Farm labor is necessary work, but nobody wants "dirty" labor bosses who tolerate dangerous working conditions, short people's pay, sexually harass, or otherwise threaten and abuse workers, right?

With a strong social safety net rotten employers will not be able to find workers they can abuse, and that's a good thing. Anyone will feel safe to tell a dirty boss "Take this job and shove it!"

There will be no "dirty" work.

Most people are not inclined to stay at home and do nothing, and if they are, so what? Their impact on the economy and environment is minimal, and they are probably not employable anyways. So many people want to work and can't find jobs why should they have to compete with those who are reluctant to participate? Society ought to, in fact, be paying someone to check up on the non-participants and offer social services to those who are not doing well and figure out why. It might be mental or physical illness, drug addiction, etc... If it really is just plain dull "would rather watch television," then does anyone want to work with a person like that? That kind of dullardness is probably the only true disability, most everyone else has some kind of sparkle within that they will contribute something positive to the community so long as their basic needs are met.

I don't believe "the devil finds work for idle hands" so much as he finds work for those who are hungry for power over other people.

Imagine shorter work weeks, longer vacations, earlier retirements, pleasant workplaces, universal free healthcare, and generous welfare, disability, and unemployment benefits.

We could have all that, but the uber-wealthy and their heirs actually believe they created that money and it's their's to play with as they please.

Fuck them.

Money is created by the people and their labor. It belongs to us. If money is not being used in ways that improve the lot of all of us, we are obligated to take it back.

Taxes ought to be progressive and high enough that nobody is hungry, nobody lacks safe comfortable shelter, nobody is illiterate, and nobody lacks appropriate medical care. Especially taxes ought to be progressive and high enough that no corporation or individual can buy the political process.

Meth addicts need a safe place of last resort other than prison or the mean streets.

Our's would be a much better world if they had access to legal amphetamines in a safe place to come down, even if they were contributing nothing to society, for the rest of their lives even. Let them harmlessly play video games in the shelter.



"No longer a danger to self or others" is a much better world than what we have now.

Every community ought to have a place where addicts of all sorts can come in for a soft, foam-on-the-runway landing. Crash and burn is never a good thing. Innocent people get hurt.

Some people are without hope, the drugs or alcohol or cigarettes will kill them. But punishment never improves the situation.

In a gentle society some people will escape their addiction, or at least find a place where they can remain somewhat functional.

An ex-meth-head, heroin, or nicotine addict on legal meds... who cares??? Slap a patch on them, give them legal e-cigs, gums, pills, whatever they need not to be jonesing for the illegal stuff.

There are interesting little old ladies with disintegrating bones taking doses of opiates that would leave me passed out in the gutter. More power to them.

Opiates and amphetamines are remarkably non-hazardous drugs compared to alcohol or nicotine, if only the source is legal and clean.

We could save the R2D2s who now become trashcans, even free them from their addictions, if we simply abandoned this stupid "war on drugs." It would take the illegal gangster and cop, spy vs.spy, profit out of the drug trade too.

I think patents and copyrights ought to have a very short life if they pass to third party for-profit corporations.

Certainly, let artists pass patents and copyrights to wife, kids, grandkids, and other intimate relationships of the author; do let copyrights and patents support family known to the author.

But limit the time unrelated parties can control patents and copyrights

If I ever write something brilliant and profitable, yes, I might want the money going to known family after I'm dead.

Maybe corporations only ought to be able to buy time-limited leases on patents and copyrights from the artist or their name-designated heirs. After that the art would revert back to the artist's named family or be released to humanity in the public domain.

In the case of patents involving life-saving technology (pharmaceuticals, etc.) I think patents ought to be subject to eminent domain (nationalization and release to the public domain) whenever the owners of these patent are found to be restricting supply for egregious profit.