reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
Thank you for your comment.
Well I'd say that on the contrary, if some ressources are scarcer, and hence more valuable, then entrusting them to the logic of exchange would be
the worst thing to do with them. Because instead of using them in an intelligent way for the benifit of all, they would instead only be made available
to the highest bidder. Take lithium today. It's a really interesting mineral we are only just figuring out to use effeciently, we don't really know
how much there is, but it's not that abundant, and the main use of it today is creating batteries for the priviledged few who can afford I-Phones or
laptop computers, that get thrown out after five years use. In other words, a waste.
Now for your second point. Firstly, the logic of your chef example is still based in an exchange-based economy. And i'll go to the end of your post
to illustrate that. You say that it's peoples ethics that need to change. But where do ethics come from ? If you believe as I and many
socio-ethonologists do that our moral code is the product of our culture, which in turn is the product of our environnement, then it's logical to
assume that our ethics cannot change until our culture does. In an exchange-based environnement, our ethics will not change. Our ethics today are
already conditionned by such a system. You need to change the system to change the ethics.
So let's take a look at your chef, or your tailor in a "distributive" economy, where there are no conditions to accessing ressources as long as
they are abundant enough to go around. Well, since "jobs" (as in remuneration for activity) no longer exist, this great chef/tailor has the freedom
to decide how many people he wants to cook for. Now remember that despite his great skills, no one "owns" anything that can be exchanged for the
service. The problem is no longer economic, it's become simple carrying capaicty of his "restaurant/tailor-place-thingy" and how much work he wants
to put in. Maybe he decides he wants to service 50 people everyday, so he sets up a system were you reserve in advance on a day of his convenience.
In this type of system, the chef's/tailor's "reward" is his value to the community. He is admired and reputed for his great skills. But that's
it. And because ethics will have changed to fit this reward system (I'm not saying this happens over night mind you), this social appreciation will
naturally become the measure of "success". Sure, there will be people who won't be able to get into the restaurant, or get a set of the specific
clothes that they "wanted", but is this such a big deal ?
In such a system, the concept of property would also rapidly decline. Why waste space accumulating stuff that you could just go and use ? For example,
if you need a car, why own one ? We all ready have a rental system that exists. Take the money out of that, and you have the base for an efficient
distribution system. Who in their right mind would want to clutter up their street with a car, if they could access one at will ? Same goes for a
fishing rod, or a golfing club. This would lead to a far less wastefull society. You need far less "total" cars if they are managed efficiently as a
global ressource, rather than sitting around in parking lots and not being usefull to anyone.
Another good point in a distributive economy is the end of programmed obsolescence. Since there would be no economical imperative to meet, we would
focus on building the best, most efficient goods we possibly could. Add to that a extensive recycling system, and upgradable objects insead of
throwaway ones, and the abundance we have today would be decoupled.
Just some thoughts, anyway.