We’ll, I’m assuming they can’t actually be perfect, and that an authoritarian government wouldn’t do a great job in making them.

I wouldn’t want to live in a society where every offense in punished heavily. And who knows? Maybe the people think this is for the best. But I doubt it.

How do you think that would actually go down? Do you believe everyone would see this as fair and just? — I like sushi

Of course they would. The antisocial greedbags know perfectly well that they are unfair to the the other people. When the society is organized badly, one class of antisocial greedbag is labelled 'criminal' and punished for that behaviour, while another class of antisocial greedbag is labelled 'the privileged' and allowed to get away with it. A well organized society doesn't accept antisocial behaviour from any of its members and trains its young to avoid and resist such behaviour.

What about if there are people who do not want to work or do anything. Are they allowed to receive the same for free that others work hard for? Do you really think there would be no resentment by those working hard everyday and getting basically the same as those not working hard or is it that you think those in change of businesses will simply pay people more in order to gain employees? Will this all just magically balance out in your mind without any hiccups?

Other than to say some people are greedy and so they should be forced to give up their wealth I am not really seeing much follow through with how you expect this would go smoothly or otherwise if governments implemented this scheme.

I am imagining we are talking about the basic needs for living here - which is costly. Do you think it is likely a significant number of people scrapping by would simply stop working? Would unemployment rise? What steps would be taken to ease the transition or do you imagine there would be no real needs for a safety net?

What about if there are people who do not want to work or do anything. — I like sushi

We would have to wonder what's wrong with them. I've met some people who had given up on "the job market" or become fed up with being exploited and disrespected; I've met many, many people who did not like the jobs they had to take to support themselves and dependents, or that they had wanted once and found disappointing over time (as well as many who chose, prepared for and love what they're working at), but nobody who didn't have any aspirations or proclivities at all. Some may want to make music or tinker with inventions rather than build houses or harvest wheat, and they would have the same resources and opportunities as those who like teaching or healing, because society benefits from creative individuals, as it does from productive and nurturing ones.
I've never met a child who didn't want to "be" some occupation they admired. It's society that either encourages and promotes an individual's capabilities or frustrates and hobbles them; society that sets examples for the young and rewards or punishes unfairly. Besides interests and talents and ambitions, humans also have a strong desire for respect and social worth.

Do you really think there would be no resentment by those working hard everyday and getting basically the same as those not working hard or is it that you think those in change of businesses will simply pay people more in order to gain employees? — I like sushi

Part 1. The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus. Surplus for profit, for waste, for war, for the care and feeding and protection of top level users. Scrape off the excess consumption of the top 1%; get rid of all the money-handling, -hiding, -laundering, -lending, -litigating and -shuffling occupations; reduce coercive capability to policing (considerably less of that, if they're not having to deal with monetary crime) and peace-keeping (voluntary civilian militia is quite adequate) and you're down to less than half the work, or a 4-hour workday with time off for special family occasions.
Part 2. What businesses? Business is a bad idea that doesn't belong in a utopian society.

Will this all just magically balance out in your mind without any hiccups? — I like sushi

There are effective cures for hiccups.

Other than to say some people are greedy and so they should be forced to give up their wealth I am not really seeing much follow through with how you expect this would go smoothly or otherwise if governments implemented this scheme. — I like sushi

Yet once more again: No government that exists or can exist today, or has existed at any time since the rise of city-states, can possibly implement this scheme. The best they can do - and that by a hard slog against determined opposition, even from the people it would most benefit - is introduce minor local improvements. Under the current global system with its entrenched rules, procedures and assumptions, no major change can be made to the structural or economic organization of any society.
You still can't get there from here, except by climbing over a mountain of rubble.

The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus. — Vera Mont

This is simply wrong. Unless you are making a clear distinction between 'work people enjoy' as 'non-work' and 'work people don't enjoy' as 'work'. I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head?

... against determined opposition, even from the people it would most benefit... You still can't get there from here, except by climbing over a mountain of rubble. — Vera Mont

Surely you can see the problem with these kinds of views and a slippery slope.

Any kind of 'for your own good' attitude aimed at population groups is an inherently bad idea. On top of that this idea of societal collapse vision is one step away from causing heaps of rubble as it was inevitable anyway (hence why I pointed out the danger of fatalistic attitudes previously).

The best they can do ... is introduce minor local improvements. Under the current global system with its entrenched rules, procedures and assumptions, no major change can be made to the structural or economic organization of any society. — Vera Mont

I think it can be quite surprising how minor changes can have a huge impact. The biggest problem with revolutionary schemes is that they are large in scope. I do agree that small minor improvements are the best way forward, but I am clearly more optimistic than you regrading their potential overall impact on society at large. Within the space of a couple of decades we've seen smart phones and apps severely change the face of communications and media distribution ... the hard part is relieving the hiccups! :)

I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head? — I like sushi

Where does Goldman Sachs' annual profit come from?

Surely you can see the problem with these kinds of views and a slippery slope — I like sushi

No, I can't; I see a bloody great pit to fall into, and a long slow painful climb out again.

I think it can be quite surprising how minor changes can have a huge impact. — I like sushi

For the few years or decades they stay in effect, before the next reactionary administration or regime overturns them. See US Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and reproductive rights.

The biggest problem with revolutionary schemes is that they are large in scope. — I like sushi

I have no revolutionary schemes.

Where does Goldman Sachs' annual profit come from? — Vera Mont

What has that got to do with:

The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus.
— Vera Mont

This is simply wrong. Unless you are making a clear distinction between 'work people enjoy' as 'non-work' and 'work people don't enjoy' as 'work'. I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head? — I like sushi

?

No, I can't; I see a bloody great pit to fall into, and a long slow painful climb out again. — Vera Mont

And how is this not a fatalistic attitude? And this:

For the few years or decades they stay in effect, before the next reactionary administration or regime overturns them. See US Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and reproductive rights. — Vera Mont

?

I have no revolutionary schemes. — Vera Mont

I never said you did nor suggested it. I actually agreed with you.

What has that got to do with: — I like sushi

That should be obvious from the definition of profit.

And how is this not a fatalistic attitude? — I like sushi

I can only report what I see. I do not a see a 'slippery slope', which would suggest a soft landing.

I honestly do not know who you are talking to or what you are talking about in some of your replies.

It probably makes sense in your head but that is precisely where it has stayed. If you want to back track over the past couple of exchanges and remedy it I will continue.

If you want to back track over the past couple of exchanges and remedy it I will continue. — I like sushi

I don't think that will be necessary. I have nothing to add or subtract.