It is somewhat disingenuous to simply claim that people will continue to do the same work when you also dismantle the motivation structure
Is it disingenuous? Or could it be that you just don’t fully understand? It’s ok. Believe me, I have received all kinds of responses to Copiosis. You calling me “somewhat disingenuous” is nothing like what I’ve been called before :-)
The explanation you see includes a reference to the factory owner, and you suggest in your transition requirements that people must be compensated for their assets that they may be used in the best interest of society, which suggests that property rights no longer exist… but that they may also keep these things, which contradicts the used for the best interest of society thing
The key word in your statement here is “suggests”. The rest of this statement is a supposition of yours, which is based on faulty understanding. It’s ok. It’s just faulty.
Copiosis is new. It’s characteristics aren’t comparable to things you have known or experienced in the past. So referencing the nonexistence of “property rights” says more about where you’re coming from than it does what you’re criticizing.
It is true in today’s world that “property rights” conflicts with “assets used in the best interest of society”. But this is not at all a conflict in Copiosis. BTW, just today an entrepreneur in Finland described Copiosis as “Brilliant. The best thing I’ve ever seen. Ever.” More people are discovering Copiosis and have no problem with the elements you’re finding difficult to understand.
People are compensated for their investment in assets. But that doesn’t mean they give up those assets. As you may have read elsewhere: all property is privately owned. But “privately owned” doesn’t mean the same thing in Copiosis as it does in capitalism. The closest approximation to “privately-owned” in Copiosis, in Capitalism is “stewardship”. The reason we compensate people for their investment in assets is so they’re investment value doesn’t become stranded (lost) during the transition. Instead they are left whole (having lost nothing). At that point they are subject to the rules of Copoisis, which basically say: you are completely free to do with what you want with what you own.
However, they rules also say, if you’re wanting to continue becoming rich, you have to use the things you own which maximize benefit to people and or the planet. You can do things that don’t do that, but don’t expect any rewards from that. Oh, and if those things that don’t benefit the planet or people that you do, if you do them, will likely create a situation where not only can you not keep getting rich, you may no longer have access to luxuries.
So these asset owners are free to do what they want with the things they have. But most likely (because they are greedy, which is a virtue) they will do things to increase their wealth. The only way to do that is…well, I’ve already described that. And, since what they need to do things to become more wealthy don’t cost anything, it’s even easier to get rich than it was in capitalism.
…so that doesn’t help much toward the building a house, or obtaining housing, or how a distinction is made between necessary housing and luxury housing, or necessities and luxuries in general
perhaps you can put the pieces together now to figure out how a house is built. An extrapolation is easy after reading the IT scenario I pointed you to at Copiosis.com. Distinguishing between necessiteis and luxuries is easy: the person who decides is the person owning that asset. It’s that simple. Now, before you jump around to other faulty conclusions, it might be good to think about the implications of this….or ask a non-judgmental question…
…and with local volunteers determining the value of efforts, how can you assure that this power will not enable corruption that will impact those subject to the decisions
I’ve already answered the corruption question totally and completely in previous answers.
It is the actions of people, and not the actions of money that causes the problems you note, and the people will still be people
It is the actions of people yes. But they are taking advantage of the problems inherent in money. Money has no defense.
There is nothing in the explanation that explains how the contracts that allow a grocery store to function will be replaced to assure the availability of groceries, or anything else, or if stores will be considered cost effective, further complicated by your insistence that debt may not exist, and contracts are debt instruments that incur a responsibility to perform, and you insist that no such responsibility will exist to fellow people
Again, you’re trying to think about Copiosis through the lens of capitalism and money and the tools needed to prop up money, rather than opening a new way of thinking in your head.
There is no need for contracts where money doesn’t exist. What do you need a contract for? What is it about a paper with signatures on it which makes people function? The framworks within Copiosis provide all the mechanisms needed to do all the things you think contracts facilitate. But contracts don’t facilitate this “funtion” even in capitalism. What facilitates “function” is human greed, channeled toward generating amoral profit.
Contracts ARE debt instruments. You’re right. And just like all other debt (which is fiction) they disappear in Copiosis. Our framework eliminates them. Totally.
You note that there are no employees, but also that greater reward will be offered for jobs no one wants to do, but there is no explanation for how someone doing a job for compensation isn’t an employee
An employee is someone who is “employed” by a capitalist (a risktaker who puts his capital (money) on the line expecting to earn profits) to do something that contributes to the production of an enterprise. In return for their contribution (labor — a factor of production) they receive “wages”. The wages come from the capitalist, or his charge…a CEO or the HR department or some other entity the capitalist has delegated this role to.
There are no employees in Copiosis because there are no capitalists in the sense that there are in capitalism. There is no person who controls the income of other people, because there is no income in the strict sense and there is no person from whom NBR comes from. So there are no employees. Instead, people do what they want to do and if the doing generates Net Benefit, they are rewarded with enough to consume luxuries to the degree they generate sufficient benefit to the planet and people. So if someone is a former plumber in capitalism, and no one wants to do plumbing, there becomes a huge NBR market for plumbing services. If the former plumber chooses to do that work (he is free to do so or not) then because he’s the only one doing that work the algorithm rewards him highly. Why? Because one of the variables in the algorithm measures how many people are doing such work and factors that into the reward calculation. All things being equal, the more people doing the same thing, the less reward there is. The inverse is true also. This is how the algorithm is set up to work. And to me that seems quite logical.