What is the most altruistic economic system? [closed]

Question

I'm trying to write about a world with an altruistic society, and want an economy that facilitates that most of the time. I'm looking for an answer that improves public goods, retains some level of individual decisionmaking/advocacy, and benefits society without just being a benevolent dictatorship. (eg The all powerful King decides what's best for all).

I would love to hear an answer for why your system helps with altruism. Does it need a weird culture, political system, or value exchange program? Do you need external market forces to necessitate the economy? What priveledges do you sacrifice (fairness, luxury, etc)?

Please elaborate if possible why you think your answer is the right one, and what's missing if anything comes to mind.

Answer 1

Social Democracy, as practiced in most Nordic countries, which are typically ranked the happiest countries on Earth, by surveys of citizens, year after year. Regardless of their wealth.

To the best we can estimate from extant hunter-gatherers, this is also the modern equivalent of our early tribes. Basically a cooperative with a high degree of sharing.

For example healthcare, in which everyone pays a fair share for the healthcare of everyone, which is free at the point of consumption.

Free, if minimal, housing if you need that; at least you won't be homeless or freezing or roasting.

Free education, through college, through a PhD if you want one. Free nutritious food. Free safety: like police and firemen, ambulances and emergency response, free clean water, free food inspections, free rescue in natural disasters, free courts, and so on.

The proof is in the pudding, the citizens are measurably happier with their lives, and more productive and successful in the bargain.

Of course that stuff is not actually free, it is supported by taxes, but the taxes are not that much higher for the typical person than in the USA, and in fact if we in the USA did not have to pay for our own health care insurance, unemployment insurance, and other expenses that are covered under Social Democracies, we'd pay more in taxes but have less necessary outgo, and have more spendable income!

That is because a government is the only entity that can truly run a zero-profit organization in which nobody is getting wealthy, and the people in charge are making normal civil servant salaries. The profits of the commercial insurance companies increase the net cost of the protections they provide, and inevitably leave out those that cannot afford them, and those people ultimately cost us all anyway, because of their bankruptcies and uses of services without paying for them, or incarcerating them for committing crimes out of desperation, etc.

Collectively providing necessities of life is the cheapest way to do it; that is proven by the countries that do it. And it is the most altruistic economic system extant today; it strives to minimize misery, and death, and poverty. Which is an achievable route to maximizing the happiness of citizens; addressing the common factors and stressors that cause unhappiness.

I should point out that in these systems there is no ceiling on how well people can do, they still have millionaires and billionaires. Just not at the expense of depriving others of their survival needs.

Answer 2

It all depends on whether you believe people have an inherent propensity for evil.

A big part of why nobody can agree on what's the best/most altruistic political-economic system is that we can't agree whether people are inherently evil. Most people fall into one of two archetypes: Dr. Frankenstein and Mr. Hyde.

On the one hand, the Frankensteins, who follow in the footsteps of political philosophers like Plato, St. More (who coined the term “utopia”), Marx, and Rousseau, reject this bit of dogma. They assert that people are like Frankenstein's Monster: inherently good, with evil being the result of a bad environment. Thus, they idealize all-powerful centralized governments led by philosopher-kings who work to create a perfect environment and thereby eliminate evil.

On the other hand, the Hydes, following in the footsteps of Burke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Montesquieu, agree that yes, people are inherently somewhat evil. Per their name, they believe that people are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: inherently both good and bad. How much of each tendency a person has depends on whom you ask; some say we are primarily good, others that we are entirely bad. Thus, Hydes idealize decentralized systems which limit the number of people any particular corrupt bureaucrat can harm.

Both of these viewpoints have their upsides and downsides. Frankenstein's systems are vigorous and extremely quick to react to changing circumstances, but are exceptionally susceptible to corruption. They also have an unfortunate tendency to "force people to be free" in the name of the "General Good" (however they define it). Hyde's systems are resistant to corruption and encourage the development of technology and ideas, but are uncoordinated and weak in the face of challenges.

It's worth noting that these two camps are a generalization. While people tend to believe one or the other of these, how strongly they hold to these stances varies. You have anarchists (extreme Hydes), but you also have social democrats (moderate Frankensteins). Additionally, people don't always follow the party line. Locke denied that people are inherently evil, but held political views consistent with Hydes.

Which one of these you choose to idealize in your fictional work is up to you, as it ultimately depends on which of the two monsters you think accurately describes humanity's inherent evil (or lack thereof).

Answer 3

Economy based on energy as currecnty/money and shared IP rights

There are certain similarities with UBI but a more sane fair version of it.

All technological solutions do exists as a more complex wiki data base - meaning everyone can see for himself what it takes to produce stuff. It is complex and detailed enough and have proper tools to manage the data to be able to say what it takes to produce this or that in different settings.

Trough tools and such it connected to Research and Develpment process - so when one improves something, based as an example of theoretical fundamental science - it possible to trace connections from ideas to end product and its technological map - so it possible to give revards for all involved in the process of development or improvement, as a fraction of resources used on production of this equipment.

It possible to order some custom design as well, and this design will be available to further reproduction once done, and it possible to give some share of resources for the who did design it.

Production capacities are collectively owned. One can invest energy and martial resources into certain equipment or be more general kinda credit give resources to the who may have more understanding which resources and production capacities are required, they know that using their expertise and systems so as data on patterns of consumption and that production wiki from first paragrf.

All that more or less exists those days, in form of citing science papers, in form of coops, in form of indexes like S&P 500, dividnt paying shares etc. It just more about tieing all that stuff more tight together, in a more coherent system. And making IP more like Open Source stuff.

Energy by itself, those money equivalents also have to change a little bit. Ones wealth is not exactly how much kWh one is having in his "banking account" but how much of that energy can be provided in to a grid under his name.

As an example one has 1 square meters of solar panel - more of less this thing is capable to work for decades, gradually decreasing its efficiency - but it can supply certain amount of energy in common gid - and average energy production is ones wealth. It can be in form of share of nuclear plant - which guaranteed to produce let's say 10kWh/24/7/365 under his name for 20-60 years.

In that sense at each moment wealth of a person is predictable and can be used to expand or extend the capacities of energy production or used to mine ores or produce goods. And at certain point regular needs or average neds of one person can be predictably be covered for duration his life time. All goods and services do come from means the person owns, and not some non transparent redistribution means like taxation. Having that 1 square meter of solar panel or 10kWh/247/365/60 share in nuclear power plant one can invest that energy according to his needs in goods and services or into expanding his capacties to produce more energy or produce more goods or in research.

What makes it more fair is connection between knowledge how to produce things, between production means, it increases value of work for people who do science and do improvements(for those who are capable to do so), detaches speculative schemes of subjective perceptions (most of the time, or often) of value on stock exchanges, at any point in time one gets what he owns. It still have some place for some taxation for city infrastructure as an example, but this infrastructure expenses can become more transparent and manageable. Removing to certain degree specaltion aspect in many cases.

There are possible some societal changes as result of such approach(which I may have done poor job to describe) but it does not require some drastic changes and can be started based on current market systems, directly competing with them and regular way and using their or present infrastructure.