I went on Twitter and saw a hashtag the left created about Romney’s trip to London. I like trolling the left’s hashtags. It’s good sport.
I tweeted, “Did Romney hand out iPods filled with his speeches for gifts? Just wondrin’”
I tweeted, “Wondering if Britain has Universal Dental. Even the Royal family have mouths like bent cow catchers.”
Bingo. Some guy named Gary Hayward, from England, started to spar. Nice enough guy, took my insults well. But then it got weird. Really weird.
I called him a communist and he took offense. But it wasn’t what you think. He was insulted because Communism isn’t quite radical enough. Gary is a Free-For-Allist.
I mocked. He insisted I go look at some websites while he signed off for the night. I looked. Gary is either a comic genius or one of the dumbest people on the planet.
I left him a message that said I was going to blog this and that he should come over to debate. Gary and I go way back, (one hour) so as a longtime friend I get to call him names. I think we should be nice to Gary (at first) if he shows up. It might be hard to do when you see some of this blog content, but I didn’t warn him about iOTW. We take no prisoners.
When you have an economic system, you put a price on everything.
All economic systems are rationing systems based on discrimination and inequality by definition; intrinsically; you cannot have an economic system otherwise; it’s logically impossible.
Economic systems hinder human progress, since there is always a limited amount of money in the pot for anything, including things of the common good: education (schools; colleges; universities); healthcare (doctors; nurses; care workers; drug development); transport (roads; railways; buses); you name it.
Capitalism allocates resources according to ability, rewarding the more able and punishing the less able; it sorts the ‘wheat’ from the ‘chaff’; it is a eugenic system. Your abilities were set in stone when you were conceived by your parents. Neither your parents, nor you, of course, got to decide on them. They are unalterable, for life. You might as well allocate resources on the basis of any other genetic characteristics, such as hair or eye colour, or skin colour (imagine that?). (It’s not a question of effort; that’s the Effort Myth: it doesn’t matter how much effort you put in, you’ll never achieve beyond your abilities.) The more able you are, the more and better the things you get; the less able, the less and poorer the things you get.
How will goods and services be produced and supplied when there is no money around?
The workers at the coal mine dig up the coal and leave it at the gates for anyone to pick up free of charge. The baker bakes some bread and leaves it for anyone who wants it. And so with the butcher and so on.
Why would the coal miners turn up, also the baker and the butcher and so on?
People work for many reasons. To have a sense of purpose in the world, involved in the progress of mankind. Let’s face it, work is something to fill a day in with! Would people simply give up working if money was abolished? And do what? Stare at their navels all day long? I doubt it. And just think what would happen if nobody worked. Things would deteriorate rapidly. Hospitals would fall to bits, along with any other buildings. There would be no food. Water would be contaminated. There would be no transport. The list goes on. People would not tolerate a decay in the standards of living that they have been used to. Scientists and health care workers, to give just two examples, work in their respective areas because, on the whole, they care passionately about their fields. A salary cheque for these intelligent and intellectual people is not the main reason for them having the types of jobs that they have, it’s merely a bonus in a monied society. And remember, there is a conflict of interests for a health-care provider. The doctors and nurses provide a valuable service and need to be rewarded fully, but the more money that goes into the pay packets of these people, the less there is for medical equipment and drugs. That dilemma would not occur in a money-free society. And, don’t forget that there’d be unlimited resources for drug development, therapies and treatments. How wonderful for a biochemist to go to his lab knowing there was nothing to hold him back from pushing the limits of knowledge back. How sad, that, today, the NHS (National Health Service, the UK social health provider, funded by taxpayers and free at the point of use in most cases) has such difficulties. Juggling finances and beds on wards. All of that would be gone. Over in certain African countries, the poorest of the poor would have access to all of the medical treatments available anywhere (no transport costs and no drugs costs, etc) so no more blindness for want of a simple operation to remove two cataracts.
Wouldn’t people just go crazy and stockpile resources for themselves, selfishly?
What would be the point? Every good and service would be in plentiful supply for anyone at no cost. There would be no point at all in selfishness. There could be instances of what might be called ‘waste’. Somebody might create a giant video wall in their back garden wiht thousands of televisions, gargantuan works of art might be created by anyone and put anywhere. However, these things would be likely to be undertaken only by the minority.
Would people have personal possessions?
Yes, but that would not take the form of stockpiling as mentioned above. People would be perfectly entitled to have personal possessions. Most people wouldn’t want to share their homes, for example, and, why should they? Maybe communnal living would evolve in the future, but there is no necessity for it in a money-free society. And there’d be unlimited resources to build homes.
Wouldn’t there still be lazy types who would not do anything and just sponge off everyone else.
Of course. But there are these types today and they would be much diminished in a money-free society. Opportunities would be available for all — education unlimited in resources (including teachers), unlimited employment and so on. Forget about unemployment, there would be no unemployment. if a relative few wished to do nothing and live off the rest, so be it. Good luck to them.
Wouldn’t the Earth become polluted? There would be unlimited exploitation of the planet’s natural resources, surely?
Don’t forget that there would be unlimited progress in all areas, including technology. There would be no stopping the development of cleaner, greener energy and for cleaning up the world, unlike today, where fitting, say, sulphur-reducing equipment to a power plant costs big money. Today, it costs to be good. Cleaning up polution is a part of the financial equations of businesses and governments. Money used for the environmental good can not be reused for something else, say, product research and development, marketing and so on.
You get the gist. You can read the rest here.
Oh, wait. One last thing. This is why I think Greg is a comic genius:
MERCHANDISE ON IT’S WAY?
This organisation hopes to be making available various items for purchase over the internet, such as pens, T. shirts, badges, bumper/car window stickers, ballons(!), and mugs (and anything else we can think of). We can’t promise anything, but watch this space for further announcements.
Okay. There’s really too much to make fun of here. Asking questions almost feels like you’re legitimizing notions that shouldn’t be legitimized. But maybe we can save a life here.
I’ll start with this.
In this “everything is free” society, who is going to do the dirty, dangerous and depressing jobs?
There are jobs that are only performed by people because it is compensated nicely, or because it’s their only ability.
For instance: who mops up the peep show booth? Who drains your cesspool? Who crawls into the sewer? Or, to use you r stupid example – WHO WORKS IN A FRIGGIN COAL MINE??
Everything is free. Why would anyone want to be the one that cleans up a heinous crime scene? Why would anyone be a prison guard? Why would anyone put out an oil rig fire?
Wouldn’t everyone want to be an actor? Wouldn’t everyone want to live in Malibu?
Who would want to live in the shittiest locales? And who decides who gets the beach view?
Please tell me that you’re joking. Please.