Why?

Because it simply doesn't display any sign of careful thought whatsoever.

Without a price mechanism, there is no way for consumers to indicate to produces what should and shouldn't be made. Additionally, in this system, as they say, everyone would only do what they wanted, resulting in relatively few labourers and a lot of professors without food.

I sincerely hope you aren't really suggesting that this might be a good way of running affairs?

I'm not sure about it. However there would be more than a few laborers. If a few people don't work, it wouldn't matter. If a lot of people don't work, for a while nothing will be made and then people will start working again so they can survive.

Frankly, I am not sure if I should be sad that someone thinks that is viable, or annoyed that someone is trying to implement it (more sad I think). Essentially, the problem is that if I want a Bentley, a helicopter, and a beachfront house, and so does everybody else, then there is no way that is going to happen (this applies to any other scarce resource as well). Thus, how do you figure out who gets what? You set a price for it (just like we do now) and those that can pay do, and those that can't don't.

Well, the bentley and helicopter problem could be solved by building more of them. The tricky one is the beachfront house (or anything like it) Because there are limited beach fronts. However, I doubt everyone wants a beachfront house. So interesting argument, but not enough to get me to sway in that direction.

As stated before, I am on the fence about this.

I really want to get the two books mentioned, but the guy who wrote the post is trying to make a PROFIT on them! If he believes in this system, why doesn't he pay it forward and give away the books????

The guy has to survive. And I don't know how much he is selling the books for but I bet they are cheap.

I love how the author very carefully avoided using the words "socialism" or "communism" so that stupid people wouldn't realize what this is.

@rlumley: exactly what I was going to say.
Ps, this is a stupid idea. Without motivation or incentive to work, why do it? So you can live? but how're you going to get a balenced healthy diet? You can't produce all that on your own, and even if you tried, someone else would take it.

I get one real clear-cut idea from this: Socialism and communism are the closest to utopia man could ever achieve, if and only if we could eliminate it's biggest downfall: limited resources. If we could figure a way to eliminate that issue, this guy's plan (communism) would work perfectly.

Also, @Conservative Man:

I noticed in another thread you called yourself a Liberterian. Please don't. You're embarrassing us.

I don't think you guys understand that regular socialism and communism requires government. This doesn't. Although it is kind of socialist, it eliminates the real downfall of communism (government). In this system there is no incentive to steal, or commit most other crimes. And aslan, if everyone didn't work, then things wouldn't get made, so people would start working again so they can survive.

"I don't think you guys understand that regular socialism and communism requires government."

Yes. We're CLEARLY the ones that don't understand the situation.

@rlumley: This is a very libertarian philosophy. It gives people freedom to do what they want, and stops people from being slaves to money.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHH

You know what's funny Rlumley? In your argument in "Bush on Steroids" I actually agree with you.

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

'I love how the author very carefully avoided using the words "socialism" or "communism" so that stupid people wouldn't realize what this is.'

yeah, i love how stupid people see those terms as tainted so you can't use those words in an arguement with them.

"In this system there is no incentive to steal, or commit most other crimes."

That is utter crap. If i want to grow beans in my garden, but i am the only one, well they are free so apparently you can't steal them.

But i don't get to eat them so i may starve because other people keep taking my crops.

I mean you can redefine the world so stealing doesn't exist because i don't own the fruits of my labour. I mean stealing can't possibly exist because EVERYTHING IS FREE, but if everything is free do i still have the right to refuse sale of my (free) goods? if i do then it doesn't matter that things are free there is still a desire to steal them if they are scarce.

You cna't really have it both ways.

"No Money

With everything free there would be no reason to have money, credit or barter. This would eliminate most of the bookkeeping and many businesses. Many jobs would become unnecessary, e.g. most accounting, sales, advertising, banking, credit companies, insurance, armies, tax & bill collectors, government, politicians and lawyers."

- this has raises some interesting points.
1) with no-one in a restaurant to clean your table each person who eats there is expected to clean their own table - or when you stay in a hotel, as nobody wants to clean the toilets you are expected to do it yourself (and everyone does it because they know there will be no nice hotels to stay in if they don't) of course hotels are all free, so you are expected to contribute to if you are staying there.

2) Lawyers are still needed, as are judges. You may not pay them (they just argue the law because it is fun to work out what is just - as it is fun to work out how the rules apply to illegal orders in diplomacy - see another thread)

Lawyers are needed to ensure the law is fairly enforced, that people can have a fair trial. Unless the law is simple enough for all members of society to understand (and they can defend themselves)

3) Armies for the same reason above about stealing being impossible or not. They don't need to exist and the neighbouring armed tribe will come and take everything when they have a scarcity - that is why armies were developed.

OK, i haven't read it all, and some ideas are interesting (like you could make things free where a surplus can be created, for example temporary accomadation - in fact any city would benifit in tourism if it had some free rooms to stay in - you could even put a windmill on the roof, and use it to power a computer to handle the bookings - no need for a human to run it i think - HOWEVER you run into a new problem when people don't keep their booking because it doesn't cost them anything... a different set of problems even where it has potential, so not a Utopia.

Good points, orathaic. If i want to work hard now and store up the fruits of my labor so that I can work less later.... can't do that when anything I don't immediately use is "free" to others. Is my car "free" if I'm not using it? How about if I want two cars? can i have them? oops - what if someone else wants one of my two cars?

My time is too valuable to waste reading some tripe about a world where everything is free...Can only work if everyone is equally motivated to participate and will truly work to the best of their ability to contribute, and since man is essentially evil and greedy at heart (proven throughout history...) it is a waste of intellect to argue how it would work. Funny thing, I'm unemployed and my time is STILL too valuable to read such Try researching the first year of the settlement at Plymouth Rock, when everything belonged to the community. It was an absolute failure. When everyone was given a plot of land and told they could keep or sell the fruits of the labor, the community prospered...and hence America was on it's path to existence. There is your free society...it was tried, and it didn't work.

@Indy: Why would somebody take your car when they could get one just like it from, say, Toyota, for free?
@krellin: Then the corporation formed, and suddenly, people weren't able to keep the fruits of their labor or sell them for cash and their bosses ended up getting most of it. I didn't know about Plymouth Rock, but what they changed to led to society today, so obviously that didn't work either.

Consider one of the many workers and peasents of the European Union working on a production line in a car plant (lets call him Bob). Bob doesn't exactly enjoy his job... the hours are longer than he'd like, and the work is repetitive and boring, but its makes up for this fact by paying well so our hard working Bob can enjoy expensive holidays to far flung places and provide a high quality home for his family. One day the new system is introduced and Bob suddenly finds himself doing the same job but only enjoying the same rewards as the local park warden (a previously poorly paid job, but one which had the benefit of the worker doing little more than talking a relaxing walk in the park, watching the squirrels, chatting to friends, and picking up the occasional piece of litter).

Bob decides on this day that it would be a damned fine career move if he became a park warden too, and promptly dons the uniform and proudly begins his new life where everything is free and life is without stress. Alas, within a week there are no longer any production lines left in operation, the world's mines have been closed, oil wells have been abandoned, and for some reason all the garbage collecters have quit their jobs. Still, everyone's happy because everything is free, and all those many things people thought they enjoyed that no longer exist were apparently only ever status symbols. Utopia had been achieved.

I do enjoy an insane idea with my cornflakes in the morning :)

This idea would not work. The price mechanism even occurs in primitive hunter gatherer societies. Australian aboriginals living in coastal regions of the Northern Territory would trade stingray barbs (useful as spearheads) for high quality stone (useful for hand-axes for example) found hundreds of kilometers in-land. The price of each, whether that be in stingray bards, or other items traded, would vary depending upon the proximity to the source. You will always have varying prices whenever there is scarcity. Attempts to subvert the price mechanism will always create more problems than it solves.

This is a lovely idea, however one problem springs immediately to mind:

The article suggests everyone would be free to choose any job - "They would be working at jobs they enjoyed doing -- like hobbies."

In this system, who would choose to be a refuse collector or a sewage plant worker? Some jobs are smelly, dangerous or unpleasant, but necessary for civilisation to function. I cannot imagine anyone considering working in a sewage plant to be a fun hobby.

I freely admit I didn't bother reading the entire thing, since it could easily be summarized by the sentence "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need "

It's possibly the most transparent restatement of socialistic principles I've ever seen, and I'm the kind of guy who cringes who those on the right start screaming "socialism!" every time someone wants to raise a bridge toll a nickle.

It's also been tried before, and fails every time. And for those who are going to make the statement that Cuba / North Korea aren't "real" socialism, I wasn't *talking* about them, I was talking about the United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony#Economy