Links on abolishing money:

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Because Federal currency is the currency of Empire. Which I despise and don't wish to support... Local currency STAYS local, is the point. It circulates in the local economy and stimulates IT, not globalization and the extension of implacable Empire...

Sounds to me like you're just arguing for a non-fiat currency. I don't see how that translates into a local currency.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman What are you talking about? Obviously nature doesn't "favor simplicity", or life wouldn't exist.

Good point, i misread enthalpy, which is actually a decrease in randomness and more towards structure. Heh, i guess that one goes against my whole arguement.

Sorry about that one, my bad.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: PatrickHenry International currencies foster greed and Empire.

Care to explain that statement?

[Amuse]

Most of you are missing the point. You keep refering to $ value and the whole point of the thread is NO money.
Points to ponder:
If money were not an issue, would you still do the job you do now and why?
Could you do the job strictly for personal improvement and knowledge?
How does it help the collective?
Lastly, and this is a tough one, what would YOU decide your wants and needs are keeping in mind you no longer have to keep up with the Jones's and keeping in mind that $ value IS NOT AN ISSUE?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Amuse the whole point of the thread is NO money.

Without SOME medium of exchange, life would be unbearable. What means would I have to travel to the mainland to see my grandkids?

Could I LIVE on the avocados from the trees around here and the fish I could catch after walking to the beach? Who knows? But that wouldn't be the sort of life I would want...

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Amuse Most of you are missing the point. You keep refering to $ value and the whole point of the thread is NO money.

The only one missing the point, Amuse, is yourself. It's not about $ value, it's about the real value of what one contributes to the collective. We are NOT a subsistance society, in which we create exactly enough to eek out bare survival. We create far more than needed for subsistance, which allows our economy to grow, and the value of what we create needs to be distributed based on what one contributes to that growth. Being fallable humans, the current system's obviously not perfect, but it could not work AT ALL without a form of currency, and no civilization for 5,000 years has been able to do that.

Quote by: Amuse If money were not an issue, would you still do the job you do now and why?

That was the concept behind Communism... "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". It failed because people are NOT willing to give 100% if there's not at least a taste in it for them. With appropriate checks and balances, self interest benefits everyone by motivating individuals to excell. Ambition is what drives progress, not idealism.

Quote by: Amuse Could you do the job strictly for personal improvement and knowledge?

No. Again, Communism showed that people won't. When capital was no longer the currency of ambition, the currency became power. Ambitious, motivated people are always going to seek out the currency that gets them ahead, whether it's money or power or whatever.

Quote by: Amuse How does it help the collective?

Excelling raises the bar. I'm not a supply sider by any stretch of the imagination, but in a liberal democracy a rising tide does lift all the boats, and it takes motivated, ambitious individuals to raise the tide... as long as you have democratic checks and balances to prevent ambition from running off into oligarchy.

what would YOU decide your wants and needs are keeping in mind you no longer have to keep up with the Jones's and keeping in mind that $ value IS NOT AN ISSUE?

My wants and needs are to not be spending 3/4s of my time bartering the real value of my contribution to the community through 12 layers of barter, trying to angle some way to trade my particular skillset for that damn quart of milk. My wants and needs are to do what I love for a living in a challenging, creative atmosphere, live in an exciting, sophisticated, culturally diverse city and to be able to buy what I want, be entertained when I want, and experience what I want, according to what my skills will afford me, without worrying about how many people I have to barter with in order to go see that great movie I've been looking forward to this weekend.

Isn't that clear enough for you? Your air-fairy idealism doesn't explain how, without currency, I'm going call my gal to join me for a couple of decent seats at Stomp this weekend at the Civic Auditorium, purchased online, and then casually stroll the Gaslamp District afterwords for someplace new for dinner, a couple of drinks and a pleasant chat... none of which has a damn thing to do with keeping up with the Jones's.

How on earth do I barter my art/aircraft maintenance/librarian/bio-medical research/fire fighter/grocery store manager skills for that? Explain to me in a practical manner how that could work and maybe - just maybe - we have something to talk about. And don't tell me I would be better off living without it, because you asked me what I want and need and I just did.

.

[Amuse]

Sonart and Patrick, the fact that we have had commerce that uses currency for five thousand years is testiment to why you can't grasp the idea of a society without currency. It' always been that way. Most people have been assimilated by the currency borg and resistance is futile. ( for those who are scratching their heads, the borg were a group of aliens from star trek that assimilated all races they came in contact with and took away their individuality)
Communism didn't work because the ones in control became greedy and bleed the system dry. The controling elite weren't able to understand that their thirst for power and wealth is what brought the system down. It started out as good for the collective but man has not evolved enough to recognize and overcome the basic instincts of survival. Meaning the idea of scarecity nesecessitates dominance and greed for survival sake. The people born before communism didn't like it, the people born during communism learnd it, lived it became used to it so when communism fell they had a difficult time at first understanding a free market system.
Man has the ability to progress quickly in all areas of existance but the one thing that slows down that progress is money. Attainment of money has become the primary motivation for progress instead of progress itself being the primary motivation.
Sonart, you and I have been in dicussion over Global Warming. We both agree that it should be addressed but disagree that the "facts" are conclusive about GW. My argument here is the solutions to GW might come faster if money weren't involved. The attainment of money has become the primary factor for overcoming GW and not for the good of man. Disease is another area that I would suggest that cures are withheald because there is still to much money to be made in research. It's become common knowledge that pharmicutical companies rush drugs to maket because of the cost of research and development knowing full well that they are harmful or don't work at all to recoup their losses and to keep the stockholders happy and not because it's for the good of mankind.

[PatrickHenry]

The ancient Hawaiians had a system of sharing (I wouldn't call it commerce)

Known as the ahupuaa system http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/hacul/history1.htm

The concept of land ownership was foreign to ancient Hawaiians. Under their holistic view of the world that incorporated all things from the ocean to the sea, no one owned the land. Instead the land was divided into ahupuaa, land sections that usually extended from the mountain summits down through fertile valleys to the outer edge of the reef in the sea (for example a large valley). The alii (chiefs) were stewards of the land and granted the makaainana (general populace) living in the ahupuaa use of the land's bounty for their livelihood. Headmen (konohiki) facilitated day to day operations with the assistance of specialists (luna). The ahupuaa formed a self-contained economic and social unit that effectively integrated the uses of its resources from dispersed ecological zones. Everyone living throughout the ahupuaa had access to all types of products and everyone was entitled to a share of what they produced from the soil or took from the sea. The system benefited the land because the ahupuaa was managed carefully, and thought of and cared for as a whole. Today, this ancient system is viewed by many as an excellent model of resource management.

It was essentially a free sharing of resources without a mercantilist motive.

This was a way of living a simple existence without cash. Just give away whatever you produce, and I'll do the same. If everyone does this, we all have enough.

This system didn't survive long after meeting a market-based cash-oriented system. Soon land titles were sold and no trespassing signs erected...

[Amuse]

That was the concept behind Communism... "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". It failed because people are NOT willing to give 100% if there's not at least a taste in it for them. With appropriate checks and balances, self interest benefits everyone by motivating individuals to excell. Ambition is what drives progress, not idealism.

This concept relies on equal pay for equal work which is still no different than the free market system. It doesn't address the youngest or the oldest of society. It basicly says if you are going to have a family of twelve then you have to work and produce twelve times as much which is illogical and unrealistic. In our free market system as in communism the young and the elderly suffer for it because they don't or can't contribute so its up to the strong to carry their weight which causes some bitterness and resentment. For those that refuse to work and contribute it is because of a lack of self respect and societal upbringing.

[Amuse]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The ancient Hawaiians had a system of sharing (I wouldn't call it commerce) Known as the ahupuaa system http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/hacul/history1.htm It was essentially a free sharing of resources without a mercantilist motive. This was a way of living a simple existence without cash. Just give away whatever you produce, and I'll do the same. If everyone does this, we all have enough. This system didn't survive long after meeting a market-based cash-oriented system. Soon land titles were sold and no trespassing signs erected...

Thats what I'm talkin about Patrick thanks for the post.
We all talk about equality, its even talked about in Americas historic documents an intended as a foundation for freedom but becase of money, man will never achieve equality but instead will continue to create a life of servitude to money for money's sake.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: PatrickHenry The ancient Hawaiians had a system of sharing (I wouldn't call it commerce)

Which worked out very well if you happened to be among the Ali'i. Another term for the system is called Feudalism. And as with feudalistic Europe, ancient Hawaiians were generally in a constant state of war, either intra-island or inter-Island. Only with the coming of the haoles, and the rise of Kamehameha the Great, did the islands unite.

Another Pacific Island tradition was to hold a giant feast and give away all one's possessions, which was simply a way of trading one currency for another. First an ambitious leader would have to collect enough material wealth in the first place, in order to throw the feast. Once given, the leader had thus traded physical possessions for great honor, prestige and political power... all the better to once again begin collecting material wealth to compete with other ambitious leaders to do it all over again.

Quote by: Amuse Sonart and Patrick, the fact that we have had commerce that uses currency for five thousand years is testiment to why you can't grasp the idea of a society without currency. It' always been that way.

Or perhaps it's always been that way because it's the only way a complex society can function. Unless you have an example showing otherwise.

So if you want me to "grasp the idea", you'll have to explain it in terms I can understand by simply answering my question... how do I barter my (place occupation here) skills in order to call my girl (using paid telephone service) for an evening out, maybe buy a new shirt before hand, pick her up in my car (paid for with about a third of my yearly income), decide which of maybe half a dozen shows to go see, get tickets, enjoy some popcorn, and then choose from a dozen eateries where we want to grab some dinner and a cocktail. A fairly simply evening out, nothing "one ups man" about it. Just walk me through it.

Quote by: Amuse We all talk about equality, its even talked about in Americas historic documents an intended as a foundation for freedom but becase of money, man will never achieve equality but instead will continue to create a life of servitude to money for money's sake.

There wasn't much 'equality' involved in the Ali'i system. You were either an Ali'i or a nameless drone working for the Ali'i, just as in fuedal Europe.

Quote by: Amuse Communism didn't work because the ones in control became greedy and bleed the system dry.

Due to basic human nature. Like I said, they exchanged the currency of capital for the currency of power. You've provided an excuse to why communal society didn't work, not an explanation of how some other system would.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Sonart, without going into the details, I must say that you have mischaracterized the ahupuaa system in the close comparison to European fuedalism. Didn't feudalism utilize money? Was anything freely given to one's fellow serfs? And freely given in appreciative return?

Amuse has certain points that are worth considering, as difficult as they are for us in the context of a money economy. We have personally KNOWN NO OTHER... Still I don't see the practical value of these speculations. The changes won't be happening.

[Amuse]

So if you want me to "grasp the idea", you'll have to explain it in terms I can understand by simply answering my question... how do I barter my (place occupation here) skills in order to call my girl (using paid telephone service) for an evening out, maybe buy a new shirt before hand, pick her up in my car (paid for with about a third of my yearly income), decide which of maybe half a dozen shows to go see, get tickets, enjoy some popcorn, and then choose from a dozen eateries where we want to grab some dinner and a cocktail. A fairly simply evening out, nothing "one ups man" about it. Just walk me through it.

All the things you mention about entertainment and courtship are rewards to yourself as part of the benefits of of being a working class gentleman. You do a service related job that you are compensated for in money because thats the barter you agree to. Your service in exchange for dollars. Out of the amount agreed to, comes a portion that goes to your government and the rest you spend for goods and services you can't do or choose not to do. So you are bartering in a sense. In a society without money you could enjoy all the same benefits as you do now and you would still continue to pursue your vocation as would everybody else continue to pursue their desired vocation at the same time and all the while everybody is contributing. You would give of yourself for the betterment of society and your own personal enrichment and increased knowledge AS WOULD THE OTHERS ALSO BE DOING. Now we come to the difficult part. This is where man has failed throughout history. Man must learn to find himself from within instead of outside himself. Our whole life as people we are told who we should be by others around us. The pattern is set from birth through infancy, childhood, adolesence, teenage years and young adulthood. We are trained to find ourselves by looking to others for who we are. When we become adults, we think we know ourselves so we begin to try and validate ourselves through others. "Look at me, I'm succsesful, I have things just like you do, I'm as good as you" but then one person sees you as better and doesn't want to be left with less because that person too is trying to find validation outside of himself so the competition begins, the drive to aquire more than your fellow man, must keep that ego fed.
This drive to compete is what causes the ideas of scarcity and limited rescources. "If I don't get it now before someone else it will all be gone" Money is supposed to control this proscess of aquisition and it does but it too has become a commodity to hoard. so the ones who make the worlds money are the ones who ultimately control things.
Man has the ability to learn to live without money, scaricty and limited rescources because his needs might be less if his needs were met and he didn't have to compete to survive. Self discipline and self respect on EVERYBODIES part is where we need to get to in order for us to evolve to a higher life form. Will it happen soon? I dought it but we can start by planting the ideas and changing our belief system.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Sonart, without going into the details, I must say that you have mischaracterized the ahupuaa system in the close comparison to European fuedalism. Didn't feudalism utilize money?

As little as possible. Medeival aristocracy felt money was beneath them, seeing their wealth in the products of their lands. This is how the Jews, who were not permitted to own land, became some of the great banking and trading families of Europe. Not wanting to dirty their hands with money, the Eurpean Nobility permitted the Jewish 'untouchables' to conduct usury when cash became necessary. Witness Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice", well after the Renaissance.

Was anything freely given to one's fellow serfs? And freely given in appreciative return?

'Appreciative return' is certainly relative, don't you think. Any examination of peasant life in medieval Europe suggests a less than free, or even modestly comfortable, life laboring for the local vassals.

Likewise for the Makaʻainana, who spent their lives laboring for the benefit of the Ali'i and Kahuna. If you want to nitpick differences in Hawaiian feudalism vs. European, maybe you'd prefer to compare the Hawaiian feudal caste system to India's, complete with Kauwa... untouchables.

Patrick, having lived in Hawaii for 17 years before moving back to the 'Big' island, I'm vastly more envious that you live there now than any mainland haole will ever be. {{SIGH}} :(

Quote by: Amuse All the things you mention about entertainment and courtship are rewards to yourself as part of the benefits of of being a working class gentleman. You do a service related job that you are compensated for in money because thats the barter you agree to. Your service in exchange for dollars. Out of the amount agreed to, comes a portion that goes to your government and the rest you spend for goods and services you can't do or choose not to do. So you are bartering in a sense.

Of course I'm "bartering in a sense". Currency simply makes it workable as divisions of labor become more complex and narrowly defined. And barter will never eliminate wealth... motivated, ambitious people will figure out ways to barter their talents into wealth, whether it's dollars, cattle or whatever. And they'll STILL be showing off their wealth, status and power, whether it was obtained through barter or cash.

And you still HAVEN'T EXPLAINED how barter will allow me to live my life as "a working class gentleman".

.

[RickSp]

Sure, after abolishing money, why not abolish the division of labor? And then language, perhaps? Neither occur naturally in nature either, at least not in human terms.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Amuse It basicly says if you are going to have a family of twelve then you have to work and produce twelve times as much which is illogical and unrealistic.

Why is that illogical or unrealistic? You have kids, it's your responsibility to support them.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Amuse You would give of yourself for the betterment of society and your own personal enrichment and increased knowledge AS WOULD THE OTHERS ALSO BE DOING.

Dream on.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Thus, scarcity.

Thus people must moderate their desires to fit reality.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I wasn't talking about literal consumption. Can someone overconsume on TVs? .

Poeple can and do watch too much TV, yes.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Again, money is more useful.

Currently, yes--because other variations currently mean systematic starvation.
It's not as though money is an absolute necessity for people to do things, but for people to be owned, irrational means of control are quite desirable.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What proof is there that the thing you are trading for exists, then? The person you're trading with will have to come all the way over to your house to see it, or you'll have to bring it with you to show him. Again, money is more useful.

Money doesn't prove that something being traded exists.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Is that right? So what's the TRUE value of a quart of milk? How much of my art skills should I trade for it? .

There is no true value of a quart of milk, as it is always in flux.
As for getting milk with your art skills, it probably wouldn't be necessary. But conceivably it could be done.

Quote by: Sonart . Here's a paragraph from one of your links... --"If you want to move into one of the big mansions and it is available, by all means go for it. If you want to build a big mansion and can get enough people together to help you build it...go for it. But this is what my gut sense tells me...if the big mansion is no longer a sign of wealth, matter of fact, ANYONE can have a big mansion...are you still motivated to build a big mansion to rattle around in and take care of? Yes, there will be a few and they are welcome to do that. This is about true freedom of choice, not controlled choice."-- How absurd. A big mansion will ALWAYS be a sign of wealth, even under the barter system. First it has to be built... hell, first you have to acquire the land, but nevermind that. And let's assume you have a hundred dear friends, all of whom have exactly the specialty skills you need to build the mansion, and all willing to spend months working all day... all just for you, cuz you're such a great friend. You still have to come up with the materials. There's the construction materials, the plumbing, the wiring, the fixtures and the furniture. That's a LOT of bartering, and you and your supplier are going to have to figure out the equivilent values of things to be bartered. 5 and a quarter tons of decorative brick... let's see, you want that in goats or football skills?

It could be a lot of bartering. Who knows? If people want to share a mansion, then they can do it by whatever means they so choose. I doubt it would be done for just one person, as opposed to the selfishness fed by the current system.

Quote by: Sonart . But being cynical, I'm thinking it will probably be hard to get 100 of even your best friends to build your mansion for nothing. You'll need specialists. So let's say you get 100 specialists... carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers, painters, etc. who will each spend about 2 months of solid work. Okay, for two months, I'll pay you each... let's see... three cows each. Fair enough? So, now I have to come up with 300 head of cattle. THAT is wealth. What's that? You don't need 3 cows? You need what? A year's worth of Internet service? Well, sorry, I can't provide Internet service, but I know a guy who makes suitcases, which I currently need and he wants a painting. He can barter with his doctor for medical service, who'll barter with his barber for haircuts, who can barter with his massuese for 3 cows worth of massages, who can barter for exactly three cows worth for the Internet service. Great, okay, that's one down, 99 to go. Next? You don't need three cows either, hunh? (Damn unions) Okay, what do YOU need? {{SIGH}} Then, once built, you have to MAINTAIN the damn place. Hmmm, what's the going barter for a full-time landscaper these days? Like I said, Grandpa, society has become WAY too complex, and someone's always going to get wealthy... whether it's cattle, seashells or favors. .

What's different? Trading is something people routinely do. If bartering somehow prevents somebody from building a mansion, then so be it. We can't all get what we want. Your examples don't make any sense. People would likely never trade cows for massages (or whatever). You are assuming that everyone has only one thing or service to trade, which is simply ridiculoous. Sometimes, I can imagine, an actual trade wouldn't need to take place.

But the underlying point behind all this is that money is abstract and relies on the threat of poverty creation, which does not, for me, mean an "advanced society."
I don't equate sadism with social advancement.

Grandpa h.