Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl
Dedicated and motivated people who are not bound and have freedom can indeed achieve many great things and that is no secret. But once a certan critical mass is obtained, you need to hold things together and complete uncontrolled freedom will not give you the necessary tools.
So, If I understand you correctly, your assumption is that people will not be corruptable due to the nature of the society they live in? So your society is one where this corruption is eliminated by design?
But wouldn't you say that society and human psychology dynamically interact with each other? And that society is partly a result of human psychology?
(I wouldn't be surprised if JemyM would jump in any moment now )
When everything is purely voluntary, one cannot ensure that everyone in a large group will agree. Large endeavours involving many people are very difficult IMO. At some point, points of conflict will arise. I am not talking about buiilding a wooden bridge to cross a small river but big projects like e.g. bulding a large scale high-speed train network. The latter, I really don't see in your system.
I don't think the monetary system is inherently stupid. As Zaleukos has pointed out in a previous post, "money" is simply a natural evolution of the bartering system.
I agree with you about the resources for the primary needs and I do think that that is a goal worth pursuing. It is the "secondary needs", the so-called "luxuries" that make me believe that your system is flawed. You do not seem to put emphasis on this whereas I do.
Don't you think you are underestimating the psychological importance of privacy?
It reminds me of a documentary I saw about a prison where they decided to put video cameras in all places, including the cells, so that al prisoners could be monitored at all times. As a consequence, they went berserk and caused a huge riot. One of these prisoners was interviewed and he couldn't believe that he acted in such a barbarian manner because he considered himself to be a calm and rational person.
About the cheese example:
So you then say that the person in question is allowed to distribute the cheese according to his/her criteria, as long it doesn't involve any illegal or harmful activities? If so, wouldn't that potentially lead to a local bartering system for practical reasons and on the long run even lead to some kind of local currency? What mechanism outside of "voluntary restrain" would prevent this?
Do you believe that rationality will always prevail over irrationality?
It is true that I do tend to add some humour with a slight touch of sarcasm into my inquiries. However, I do so to make a point. A point based on legitimate questions and I do give you ample room to make a case to provide arguments and I do listen to those arguments. Whether I interpret them correctly is another matter of course.
Food is apart from a necessity also one of the pleasures in life. Why deny people certain pleasures? If basic needs are met, why impose limitations on luxuries?
Btw, why is not eating meat a better way of living?
I actually will.