6 ms·

> despite the fact that there is presently more than enough resources to care for every citizen This is wrong. The fact there are more than sufficient resourc

> despite the fact that there is presently more than enough resources to care for every citizen This is wrong. The fact there are more than sufficient resources to care for every citizen does not preclude the need to pay for something. Suppose that I self-sacrificed by under consuming and taking a risk. Instead of enjoying my free time and spending my money, I choose to spend many days building bricks. After a while, in a hut-less society, someone might ask why they need to pay for my bricks, when there are more than enough to build huts for everyone. Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free. Renewable energy and automation are free once bootstrapped. Its the initial investment that requires concessions to give it away. Given enough of both, I don't need your labor nor capital.
- djrogers 10y ago
  Ever heard of maintenance?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    This. I think it's actually an important issue that's not being talked about - to actually create the automated future of surplus, we need to significantly reduce the effort that goes into maintaining things. We need to start creating self-maintaining systems.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
RangerScience 10y ago
Hmmm I both like and dislike your argument. The overall point is good - that there's nothing that's actually free (as in beer) once all costs are accounted for. However - Things get muddier (heh) when you consider: - The supply so vastly outstrips demand ("more than enough for everyone") that the market price would be negligible - When the "true" per-person cost of "enough bricks" is negligible; only society as a whole needs enough brick to notice the cost. - When you consider what you are not charged for as a human; in other words, what other people are giving away for free that costs them their blood, sweat, and tears. (Typically, public art and the emotional labor that goes into being a human) Note - I am very much not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that the real world appears to get waaay more complicated than that. For example - If the per-person price is a dime, that's negligible, but across a billion people, that's a hundred million dollars. Hardly negligible. Taxes do this now - what's the space program cost each American, on average? A dollar a year? To each person, the space program is pretty much free, but to society, it's not. For another example - Yosemite. Yosemite is free-ish - it's not charging market rates, that's for sure - and there definitely is NOT enough Yosemite "to care for every citizen". What's going on there? So you're spot-on that it's not ultimately free, but also missing the point, which is that if society decided it was a good idea, it (probably) could be free for each individual.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free. Renewable energy and automation are free once bootstrapped. Its the initial investment that requires concessions to give it away. Given enough of both, I don't need your labor nor capital.

djrogers 10y ago
Ever heard of maintenance?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  This. I think it's actually an important issue that's not being talked about - to actually create the automated future of surplus, we need to significantly reduce the effort that goes into maintaining things. We need to start creating self-maintaining systems.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

RangerScience 10y ago

Hmmm I both like and dislike your argument. The overall point is good - that there's nothing that's actually free (as in beer) once all costs are accounted for. However - Things get muddier (heh) when you consider: - The supply so vastly outstrips demand ("more than enough for everyone") that the market price would be negligible - When the "true" per-person cost of "enough bricks" is negligible; only society as a whole needs enough brick to notice the cost. - When you consider what you are not charged for as a human; in other words, what other people are giving away for free that costs them their blood, sweat, and tears. (Typically, public art and the emotional labor that goes into being a human) Note - I am very much not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that the real world appears to get waaay more complicated than that. For example - If the per-person price is a dime, that's negligible, but across a billion people, that's a hundred million dollars. Hardly negligible. Taxes do this now - what's the space program cost each American, on average? A dollar a year? To each person, the space program is pretty much free, but to society, it's not. For another example - Yosemite. Yosemite is free-ish - it's not charging market rates, that's for sure - and there definitely is NOT enough Yosemite "to care for every citizen". What's going on there? So you're spot-on that it's not ultimately free, but also missing the point, which is that if society decided it was a good idea, it (probably) could be free for each individual.