This is the home for general discussion of contributism and The Contributist Reader. Have thoughts, questions, provocations, ideas, jokes (knock-knock or otherwise), or matters for debate about contributism or one of the pieces? Post them in the comments below to engage with the community!
I really like the idea of a world built around generosity - it’s beautiful and seems like a better world. But I am still not sure I can see how this would look at scale. I know this is largely about a frame and new language to help us each develop our inner contributist (!), but I have to ask about the negative. How, for instance, would a contributist handle a situation in which people just aren’t generous? When they’re greedy and refuse to act on the right to give despite having the capacity to do so. If we rely on a network of generosity, what happens when enough people hold onto resources and become takers relying on the givers? What would a coercive/legal arm of contributism look like?
I think the answer to this is that a contributist society isn’t just one that incentivizes giving. It’s also one that *doesn't* incentivize taking and hoarding in all the ways that a capitalist society does.
Contributist policy is essentially policy that distributes more benefits to givers and less to takers, whereas capitalist policy is policy that distributes more benefits to capital-holders and less to those without capital. For example, I recently read an article that argued that we could help solve NIMBY-driven housing problems by distributing state revenue to local governments based on the number of affordable housing units in those localities. This is a contributist policy — benefits are distributed to those who contribute by allowing affordable housing in their areas, and those who refuse to contribute are punished by receiving less of the communal funding that the state provides.
This is more a policy answer than a legal answer, though. I wonder if you or others have thoughts on how a contributist society might approach law enforcement?
I really like the idea of a world built around generosity - it’s beautiful and seems like a better world. But I am still not sure I can see how this would look at scale. I know this is largely about a frame and new language to help us each develop our inner contributist (!), but I have to ask about the negative. How, for instance, would a contributist handle a situation in which people just aren’t generous? When they’re greedy and refuse to act on the right to give despite having the capacity to do so. If we rely on a network of generosity, what happens when enough people hold onto resources and become takers relying on the givers? What would a coercive/legal arm of contributism look like?
I think the answer to this is that a contributist society isn’t just one that incentivizes giving. It’s also one that *doesn't* incentivize taking and hoarding in all the ways that a capitalist society does.
Contributist policy is essentially policy that distributes more benefits to givers and less to takers, whereas capitalist policy is policy that distributes more benefits to capital-holders and less to those without capital. For example, I recently read an article that argued that we could help solve NIMBY-driven housing problems by distributing state revenue to local governments based on the number of affordable housing units in those localities. This is a contributist policy — benefits are distributed to those who contribute by allowing affordable housing in their areas, and those who refuse to contribute are punished by receiving less of the communal funding that the state provides.
This is more a policy answer than a legal answer, though. I wonder if you or others have thoughts on how a contributist society might approach law enforcement?