@Nola"we are going to have a bunch (as in most everyone) of people that do little more than play golf, go sailing, go hiking, play video games, watch tv, etc. These people are also going to want a bunch of stuff (even though they are not making it)."

In all fairness, I would be happy to see video games becomeing an open source, investment free activity.

If i was playing video games and unhappy that there were no good new games to paly i would choose to contribute to making some. Now i might be in the minority but that doesn't matter.

Opensource would mean everyone who wanted to make my game better could, and this would result in a collaboration which might just meet the expected production level of the current system - but if it didn't it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Now of course this is because i consider the art of programming 'fun' and the consequence of it being productive (and that productivity can be linked to other people through an open source project) is a side-effect.

Programming may be fun, but bug testing? That is teh suk

Youtube is an example of user generated content which has surpassed film and tv in some aspects.

the example given was that a parent asked his kids woudl they rather watch high-def star wars films (by george lucas) or lego stop-motion animation of star wars on youtube. And they choose the latter.

In this example as in the previous on it is technology which has turned this 'priceless system' into a workable reatliy (which can produce more and better content)

Again robots to do all our farming. How do automated farms look?

http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT08/Presentations/14_Montgomery_PNT_2008.pdf

I was going to post a legitimate argument. But then I realized that doing so would inherently legitimize this thread. And this thread is a joke.

you should definitely post a legitimate argument (somewhere) :p

Pretty sure this is not a troll, but i'm also sure that CM doesn't think this should be implemented immedeatly or anything like that...
I think he was just linking something he read and enjoyed the idea. Well, he got quite the reaction and some of you guys can be such fucking bastards about it. You should really rethink the way you respond to other people.

I can't agree with the article. But, i do think there is some merit to going 'free'. Mentioned before was open source software and user-generated content. Perfect examples of systems where monetary gain is NOT the motivation. But there are many more especially where copyrights aren't possible, like some (clothing) design etc. Also wanted to mention artists who don't sell their music (or other art), but live of donations and (live)-preformances.

Im a huge fan of free! I can't imagine the system proposed in the OP working at all. But i know i would love everything to be free :P
On the other hand, I'm studying to become a teacher. And im sure i would teach for free, granted ofcourse that i would be able to live for free too then. Let me say again that i don't see how it would work globally (or even nationally).

Now as a small though experiment: we're an alternate universe (whatever lol)... things are like described. Money is nonexistant etc, people work for free. Assuming it works ofcourse, how weird would capitalism (or however you would call what we got now) sound? I mean... you can't just go to the resaurant and get some food when your hungry? You can't just go the the hospital when your sick? You cant just go to school when you want to learn? You can't etcetcetc? Most monetery systems aren't that simple really. Would be pretty hard to explain (justify) to people with no concept of money! And then explain taxes, loans, poverty, etc etc wow they would probably scream in horror :P
Anyways, maybe in a few millenia, when all those unwanted jobs are done by robots, as Ora said!

To end with a question: do you guys think there is also downsides to the sytem we have now? profit not always leading to 'good behaviour' is a big problem i think. Maybe a more free society could solve some of those problems?

@rhumley go post legitimate arguments in your own thread or something :P

Sqrg-

First off, great post. You really put an opposing viewpoint out there well and didn't do it in a way that would be contradictory.

As for your question. There are definitely downsides to the system we have now. The profit driven system encourages people to try to cheat the system or find a way around the law. A very easy example is large corporations. Corporation CEOs routinely make millions and millions of dollars even if their company is going down the tube. Where is the justice in that? They cheat the people and lose the people's money yet make millions doing it.

A better example in my opinion is that of teachers. Generally teachers don't make as much money as other professions yet it can be argued that teachers are the most important profession in the world. Without teachers, modern society is impossible. They should be paid in a manner corresponding to their importance shouldn't they? Instead, we have professional athletes who for all intents and purposes play a game for a living making tens of millions of dollars a year. Insane.

re: sports heroes: people like to have heroes, these people are dong more than just playing games, they are public figures. The fullfill a different psycholigical role in our society. (something which perhaps a great leader would take on... perhaps like Obama, and i mean great in the sense that the people think he's great.)

second: @ "you can't just go to the resaurant and get some food when your hungry? You can't just go the the hospital when your sick?" - the system we have has produced hospitals and restaurants, and we can just go in and use these services BECAUSE we pay for them.

Lastly(for now): At free stuff: people place less value on things they get for free. It doesn't matter if i leave the tap running because water in my city is free(to me, not to society). It doesn't matter if i lose a 'free' bike because i can just get another one...

This lack of care increases demand in any system. And thus you get more waste (not that the current system works to avoid waste)

I admit i think health care should be free, but that is a system where you have professionals working to determine 'need', whether you 'need' a scan... That doesn't mean i know what the best system for paying for medical care is.

@Rlumley: I did not admit defeat. I left because none of you were actually listening to my arguments and were going around in circles. And I am a libertarian. I am part of the libertarian left, as opposed to the libertarian right. For more info, go here: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1

@stratagos:

""Looking only at the economy, the Soviet Union from 1928-1973."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union"

Still with the straw man. You highlight one element of the economy, whereas I was talking about the performance of the _whole_ Soviet economy.

I can quote Wikipedia too: "From 1928-1973, the Soviet Union was growing economically at a phase that would eventually catch up with the United States and Western Europe." Especially in the 1950's and early 60's, Soviet economic performance outstripped that of the West.

though I am actaually a libertarian communist and not a libertarian socialist.

@"the system we have has produced hospitals and restaurants, and we can just go in and use these services BECAUSE we pay for them" what's your point? I'ts not a reason to have money in the first place, so you can pay for stuff. I was assuming there was a system where no money worked...

@"At free stuff: people place less value on things they get for free."
Yes only because money = value in our society, ofcourse :P

@Sqrg: Yeah, I don't think we should do it right this second. If it ever will be implemented it will take some time, although I do like TGM's idea of trying it out on a small scale. But I'm too young to do that right now.

Conservative Man (and others agreeing) - I still think the fundamental problem is what do you do with people that don't feel like contributing, or that want to contribute, but in a useless way (for instance, I want to be the 21,987,574th person whose job it is to stay at and review resorts)? Because if you don't do anything about them, then eventually everybody will quite doing anything productive (because they want to just have fun all of the time).

Indeed the reason why a price mechanism developed was because people realised that some services demanded more credit than others for various reasons.

@ Jamie - and china is growing quicker than the west as well now - because they started at a lower level and hence have an easier time catching up.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/630097-1.html

TABLE 1 Comparative GDP and Consumption, USSR and USA, 1990.

(USA = 100)

GDP GDP Consumption
per capita per capita

CIA 49 43 31

CIA, discounted 44 38 28

ECP 36 32 24



http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth

"The Soviet communist growth strategy, following Marxian doctrine, was based on high rates of investment and a rapid buildup of capital stock. High rates of investment come at the expense of lower shares of consumption, sacrificed at the beginning in exchange for hopes of abundance in the future. Central planning, state ownership, and the dictatorship of the proletariat were the necessary tools needed to impose such sacrifices"

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/1112russia_gaddy.aspx

Western analysts were astounded by the magnitude of projects, the scale of investment in Siberia, and the rapid rate of growth. But neither the scale of projects nor the size of Soviet GDP meant that the allocation of resources involved was determined by market rules. Siberia's growth was entirely driven by communist planners bent on creating an industrial utopia in this vast region.

Most of the Siberian endeavors would never have been undertaken under market conditions. Some of the largest construction projects were located in the harshest climatic zones of the so-called Russian North, where the costs of construction were extremely high. By the late 1980s, Siberian projects offered an extremely low return on their massive investment. Gorbachev's economic advisers backtracked from commitments to huge construction ventures, criticizing giant outlays and postponing many projects indefinitely.

The Siberian industrial enterprise was brought to a screeching halt by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today's Russia has inherited the burdens of maintaining all the huge enterprises communist planners left for it in distant places. And millions of Russian citizens find themselves stuck in Siberian cities with bankrupt industries and dismal living conditions. Those who would like to move are prevented from doing so by persistent institutional barriers to mobility and insufficient jobs and housing in other parts of the country.

The case of Siberian development in the 1970s raises the question of opportunity costs—where the country grows, what it builds and with what long-term benefit. And who makes the decision to build something in the first place, the market or the government?

As I have stated a million times already, that is not a problem! If people stop doing productive things for a while, then nothing will really get made, and THEN, the people will start doing other stuff, lest they won't be able to really enjoy their leisure time.
Anyway: Please try to skim through this; I know it is long: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI4

That was at Nola by the way.

Try reading Cloak of Anarchy and then tell me how great anarchism is

and I thought you were going away because we're mean, CM

Conservative Man - Though I did not read the entire article, I did read enough of it to see where they were going. Essentially, there are a bunch of communes on which everyone lives (or if not, is forced to work as a farmer for all practical purposes since without money, there is no useful medium of exchange) and somehow contributes. There is therefore already a "government" as the commune seems to have the ability to accept people and boot people out (thus it is a pure democracy mabye?). I was not really sure how relations among communes were managed (so could I take over another commune by force, or is there another government layer that stops me?), but it appears to me that without a real government you would more or less get mafia style government eventually (since you can't eliminate those sorts of people and with no opposition, they will rise to power eventually).

Also, your specific statement woud directly violate the Nash Equlibrium of the state in which nobody works. In a state in which everybody does nothing, if I do work while the other person does not (but that person is still able to enjoy the fruits of my labor), then I have little incentive to work because I can just assume that the other person will do something (while I will not). Also, if I work and the other person does not, then he/she gets the fruit of my labor, but conbributes nothing (which I will not be happy with).

In addition, the "productive" state is not a Nash Equilibrium (thus not stable) because if just one person stops working, then nothing bad really happens, so the incentive for every individual person is to stop working because everyone else can just pick up the slack.

Also, why are you interested in compelling other people to participate in your system? Nothing at all is preventing you from giving away your excess production (ie: money), once your needs are met.

If your needs are *not* met based on the work you do.... then I guess society doesn't really *value* what you do, does it?

@nola: I never said I agree with the communes part.

Just... just.. I don't know... I can hardly debate this... it's just... wow...

CM, really? You're ignoring basic economics. No serious communists would ever make this argument... The model practically assumes no scarcity, which would be absolutely amazing, and would make economics and economic systems an entirely moot point.

What about economy of scale? You do realize that the vast majority of products produced can in no way be produced by any single person doing a hobby? You assume that once people realize that not everyone can be ice cream tasters they can just switch into farming, textiles, carpentry, or what have you. That's just not realistic.

Gah. I can't do this.

Conservative Man - That is OK. So what is the incentive to work if I can just take from others who do? I am still not sure how this problem really gets addressed. The article you linked indicates that communes could boot out unproductive people (thus providing them with some incentive to do something). Without anybody to make me work or set criteria for taking free stuff from other people, I don't see how we would avoid devolving into a sustinence-level agrarian society.

@nola: If you are one of the only people not working, it doesn't really matter. If a lot of people aren't working then my previous argument that I've said a million times applies.

@everyone: I encourage all of you to look at "an anarchist faq" I've been linking to it on this thread. It will probably answer your questions.

"What about economy of scale? You do realize that the vast majority of products produced can in no way be produced by any single person doing a hobby?" - ignore again the high-tech video games makers example where this isn't an issue.

However you are ignoring the Diseconomies of scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomy_of_scale

I mean the bigger a company the bigger it's total profits and thus the larger hole wasteful practices are likely to make in those profits. (sure it is in their interest to fill the hole, but it is not neccessarily easy)

I know this is getting away from the point, but bigger those not neccesarily mean better.