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

@tio @aral @msavoritias

On being forced into trade — we are born into a world of scarcity. We work and contribute in order to get value from others in return. If we don't work, we don't live.

Civilised societies will never let those who are disabled/unable-to-work to die — but for those who can work, they should. It's how we contribute to advancement of the species.

We can't sit around, not work, and allow others to keep us alive. It makes us reliant on them.

And that's slavery.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn
On being forced into trade — we are born into a world of scarcity.
Where is the scarcity? More homes than homeless people; more cars than people can drive, more food than people can eat, more clothes than people can wear. We throw every year 350 cruise-ships full of electronics and 500 of textiles. We throw 40-50% of all edible food. Supermarkets are full of stuff. Where is the scarcity?
We work and contribute in order to get value from others in return
Not necessary anymore. We have so much stuff we create mountains of waste out of it. We should share the stuff rather than trade for it and create so much waste.
those who can work, they should
Why? Why should we be forced to work in order to live in this society? In order to access the abundant stuff we already have?
It's how we contribute to advancement of the species.
It is how we contribute to the destruction of our lives, keeping ourselves busy with nonsense and repetitive jobs. It is how we destroy the planet, create a lot of waste, idiotic and unnecessary jobs and products. Just to keep the religion of trade alive.
We can't sit around, not work, and allow others to keep us alive.
Oh we do worse than that. We create useless jobs and useless lives, and waste, while just a tiny few keep us alive with necessary "jobs" and inventions. The rest do useless stuff. I would rather see humans sit around doing nothing than consume and consume and waste and destroy.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

Where is the scarcity? Everywhere.

Everything we need to reach a goal is scarce.

Time. Goods.

There is a finite amount, and this is a limitation of the physical universe — unfair as that may seem.

There isn't enough space for everyone to have a beachfront house.

There aren't enough semiconductors for us all to have an Xbox. (there's a shortage at the moment)

The idea that we have abundance does not stand up to logic or basic reason.

Abundance is an illusion.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

"Why should we be forced to work"?

If we can't agree on the same physical reality of scarcity, this is going to be difficult.

In a world of scarcity, we must produce in order to create more goods/services (the "means" which help others reach their goals).

If you're not a producer, you're reliant on the production work of others.

This is why (while charity is noble) we should encourage people to be self sufficient and not reliant on charity.

This leads to growth 💹

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn So what is the answer to "Why should we be forced to work"?. The fact that we live in a scarce world and the only way to distribute this scarcity is to force humans to create endless and (many times) useless jobs for the sake of distributing the scarce resources? Is that the answer?

@tio @aral @msavoritias

You're misinterpreting mass production for some items with abundance.

The beachfront example is a simple way to explain that there is a limited quantity of goods/services/time.

Today, because of the free market, we live better than the kings of old.

The solution to improving these issues is to minimise/eliminate the state, and encourage free, undistorted markets, which are the source of many of the challenges you've identified.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn You are not answering that simple and crucial question: Why should we be forced to work?
Today, because of the free market, we live better than the kings of old.
In some regards. We also destroy more than anyone else in history, destabilizing the climate and biodiversity, and creating mountains of waste. Don't leave that aside.
encourage free, undistorted markets
You mean let google, facebook and the like compete without disturbing them? This seems more of a disaster than what we have today.

@tio @aral @msavoritias

We are not forced to work. It is a voluntary choice.

Our human nature (we are not immortal) means we need food and drink. That is not a fault of trade or markets.

Destruction is primarily a result of the state. Largest polluter on the planet is the US military. And pollution is enabled within frameworks created the state.

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 0

@tio @aral @msavoritias

I'd love to invite you to take this free 30 minute video course in economics.

It's trade-free (from a charity).

mises.org/economics-beginners

It's very difficult to debate topics on economics without both having a fundamental framework to work on.

@aral @msavoritias @bjorn I do not want to talk about economics as that's a human invention. I want to talk about how to take care of human beings and get rid of most of today's problems. How to create a better environment for humans, and so forth.
@aral @msavoritias @bjorn
We are not forced to work. It is a voluntary choice.
You cannot make this argument, I am sorry. I have no choice other than trade in this system. If there are other ways let me know.
Our human nature (we are not immortal) means we need food and drink. That is not a fault of trade or markets.
It is the fault of markets (trade) that these basic needs are only provided to us if we trade, in a society in which we throw mountains of these resources.
Destruction is primarily a result of the state.
And why do states pollute?
Largest polluter on the planet is the US military.
Transportation, livestock industry, textile industry, and so forth. These are the largest polluters and destroyers. In the name of trade.
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.