3 ms·
Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we
by d1sxeyes 5y ago
Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’?
I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions.
Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far.
I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.
- bjourne 5y agoWorkless societies depend on voluntarism so there is no need to precisely define value. For instance, who decided that creating Linux was valuable use of Linus Torvalds time? In situations where you really have to define value, democratic votes is fairer than "letting the market" (i.e rich people) decide.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago> Workless societies depend on voluntarism This presents a workless society as a real thing, rather than a hypothetical. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any workless society (apart from hunter gatherer tribes and history). If you have examples of a society that functions fully without work, then please share, I’d be interested to see how you solve volunteering for unpleasant or undesirable tasks that no-one wants.
- bjourne 5y agoThey have existed on small scales. Everything from hippie communies to Christian monasteries to Israeli kibbutzim. The reason tasks are undesirable is because the tasks are detached from people's lives. Raising kids is certainly "objectively" undesirable, yet people do it for free and at great costs. Why? Because it's meaningful.