Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl
I think this approach is seriously flawed. When everything is voluntary, two or three smart and dedicated people can perfectly come together to create some great stuff. However, when one wants to reach higher goals, a large group will be required and it is very hard, if not impossible, to reach a common consensus on how the workpackages are distributed and who will take the responsable roles regarding authority and final decision making.
A pre-established structured organisation, regardless of its perceived efffectiveness, will allow large groups to work together so that that far reaching goals can be achieved.
Are you implying that you have this profound insight in human behaviour such that you can extrapolate this knowledge and predict the human condition in a hypothetical situation that none of us have ever witnessed?
I admit, I lost you there. So you make a distinction between finished luxury products and resources to produce those luxury products?
What if someone were to make his/her own homegrown cheese, a luxury item, after receiving the resources to produce it on a regular basis. Would that person be allowed to distribute that cheese as he or she sees fit or would a "centralised authority" decide how that luxury item is distributed?
True, which is why I found it odd that you would attribute such property to my character. I expected just a simple "yes" or "no" .
I am indeed not a religious person but denouncing religion myself does not automatically imply that I do not accept that to be a valid way of life for others.
I think this is one of the main flaws. The founders of such society would probably live in harmony but there is absolutely no guarantee that future generations will continue with that philosophy.
What is the deal with vegetarianism? From what I understand, the people's diet should not interfere with the "mechanics" of your society. It seems to me that you are imposing some of your own morality.