At least future generations will know that not all of us were self-destructive, shortsighted fools. Knowing folks like this exist gives me hope.

trade-free.org/

💕

#TradeFree

@aral say this were adopted globally and it was only demand ↔ supply (but no prices).

- how can we use scarce goods efficiently without a price mechanism?
- why would people produce goods that aren't fun to make?
- what would stop drug users from consuming but not producing?

@bjorn @aral

You assume that if we removed money and markets everything would stay the same. It wouldnt.
And no its not human nature anything.

@msavoritias @aral

If the world relied on purely gifts, with no prices or trade, it’d be almost impossible to organise specialised labour to produce goods.

Gifts are produced through cooperation and a larger process. For a tribe built on love/trust in a tiny area with primitive goods, it’d be doable.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn I can give you many examples, but here's one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Na… . These people save lives all around UK. All are volunteers. Their job is specialized. See a ton of examples here www.directory.trade-free.org/

You can have specialized labor based on volunteers. Even in today's very competitive and trade-based society.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

Almost all the charities linked in that directory pay massive amounts in direct salaries.

Look at their reports for direct salary info:

St Jude — $600m/year
Red Cross — $972m/year
RNLI — £83m/year
Heart — $392m/year

For RNLI specifically, 68% of all their costs are salaries.

Almost all the non-charity examples there are for nonscarce items — software, where there's no additional cost for each additional item produced.

Scarcity is the physical barrier.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn Of course Wikipedia also pays a few people and for the servers. But we re talking about human motivation here. RNLI, Wikipedia, and the like, rely almost entirely on volunteers. So, millions of humans, doing extremely specialized work, without wanting anything in return. In a society in which the opposite is enforced.

I am not sure what point you are trying to get across? That we can't have specialized work unless we force those people to do those things?

@tio @aral @msavoritias

Good question — the point is clearly laid out in the RNLI report, and applies to all large and complex charities:

"There are a number of specific skills needed to keep such an organisation running as safely as possible and at peak efficiency." — and these are paid staff.

Volunteers mainly carry out the unskilled tasks — fundraising.

No force should ever be involved. When you hire someone, you enter a voluntary agreement to trade money for services,

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn
Volunteers mainly carry out the unskilled tasks — fundraising.
No. The volunteers are saving the lives of humans there. Same as Doctors Without Borders. Same as White Helmets. Same as so many programmers doing complex software. Same as millions around the world. In, again, a society where the opposite is enforced.
No force should ever be involved. When you hire someone, you enter a voluntary agreement to trade money for services,
Not at all. When I am born on this planet I have to enter the trade-system else I cannot survive. This makes me no voluntarily do that, but forcefully. And you do not trade money for services. You trade your skills, energy, time - basically yourself - , for goods/services. Money is just a way to measure these trades.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

While I appreciate you believe that Doctors without Borders, White Helmet personnel and RNLI crew aren't paid — however this is sadly factually incorrect.

They all pay salaries to their specialised workers. You can find salaries on Glassdoor or their websites.

e.g. doctorswithoutborders.org/care

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn I do not believe, it is correct that people volunteer for such organizations and do it for free. And there are many who do a lot of specialized work. It is not news to me that these orgs pay some of their staff. I am also sad to have noticed for the past years how "volunteers" started to mean paid workers. A volunteer should volunteer, not be paid for their work.

Regardless, we are talking about trade-free goods/services no matter how they are created. I am not convinced that humans cannot do large scale projects with specialized humans, without them being forced to do so. Some are paid today because it is difficult not to pay them.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

"we are talking about trade-free goods/services no matter how they are created"

This is the crux. Trade was a critical component in making these things.

The paid RNLI lifeboat crew willingly trade their time (and lives) in exchange for money.

And this goes the entire way through the complex charitable organisational structure. And this is a relatively small charity.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0
@aral @msavoritias @bjorn
Trade was a critical component in making these things.
Trade may be necessary in some aspects of these orgs. You make it look as if it is all about trade. It is an inconvenience at best.
The paid RNLI lifeboat crew willingly trade their time (and lives) in exchange for money.
Unless I am wrong, they do not paid most of their staff. Like 95% of them are not paid. So they do not trade. And RNLI is a big org not a small one. Operates throught the UK.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

Volunteers trade their time — and it's a transfer of economic benefit. It precisely fits the definition of trade.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn Volunteers should not trade anything because trade is between 2 humans (at least). Or humans and organizations (still humans). A volunteer doesn't trade their time to get something from someone. If it does that for themselves that's a completely different monster. We are talking about our trade-based society where we give in order to receive, from others. I also create a lot of trade-free projects. But I do not trade my time in order to get something our of it. However if I were to have a job, I would have to trade my time in order to get food or whatever that job can get me. That's a trade example. If I just work but ask for nothing in return, that's not trade.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

They absolutely receive something of value, which is why they do it.

Nobody carries out any action unless they believe it helps them achieve their goals, whatever they may be.

As Mises said in his great book, "The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness"

So whether it's a sense of goodwill, or a desire to give back after being rescued at sea — they do it for some personal benefit, and non-monetary reward is what we get for most actions we take.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn
They absolutely receive something of value, which is why they do it.
Not from the others. That would be a trade. If you get value out of helping others, then that's not a trade. It is like saying peeing is a trade because you get relief out of it. This is, of course, cartoonish.

If Mises helps me repair my bike and asks nothing from me, then that's trade-free (volunteering). If Mises gets pleasure out of it, this is still trade-free for me. I didn't give her pleasure unless she asks me to have sex with her in return for repairing my bike. That would be a trade.
Nobody carries out any action unless they believe it helps them achieve their goals, whatever they may be.
That is an absolute statement and I cannot take it seriously. I do a lot of free work for many years now, simply because I enjoy doing it, or enjoy helping others.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
The Remnant

A free, open community for the Remnant. Matrix server at matrix.remnant.social. For more about Remnant theory read Isaiah’s Job.