GeoffP said:
Not a word of that can I disagree with.
However, the challenge to attaining that outcome: When currency was gold and silver, it was much easier to imagine it worth something. Now, with complex formulae describing values that are obsolete as soon as the computer spits them out, it is much easier to view paper currency and plain metal coin as inherently worthless, a representation of an abstract value that only suffices by popular convention. That is, if we decided tomorrow to start trading hemp and wheat, we could do so as long as everyone similarly agreed on the value and to honor it.
In this form, currency actually becomes a representative organizational system. That is, there are a lot of people in the world. They consume a lot of wheat, rice, lumber, textile fiber, animal product, and water, at least. In order for any system of social governance to function, it must be able to help the people account for circumstance. An easy example is making sure they have enough food to get through the winter. Or that there are enough construction materials and food to provide for the damage of the storm season.
I would suggest that this is much easier to accomplish if the "bean counters" aren't counting actual beans. A dollar represents so many beans, or so much lumber, or electricity, or whatever. As much as I might appreciate the Star Trek idealism, I don't see how it works. Specifically, I can have whatever faith in people I might—and some would say it's far too much—but I don't see how we are going to achieve the sort of resource surplus that will allow us unregulated consumption. If nothing else, in that context currency actually restrains people a certain degree. To wit, if pot wasn't forty an eighth at the minimum, I would never see the world through sober eyes again. I would smoke it, eat it ... hell, I'm sure if I had a kinky enough lover I might even try a high-THC enema°. In the end, between an organizational purpose, an inherent regulatory effect, and the real limitations of resource availability, production, and distribution, I don't foresee the idea of money disappearing anytime soon. Really, if I could figure it out, I would certainly let everyone know. But I can't. Or, at least, I haven't yet.
A certain amount of desire is healthy in the evolutionary context. But before we can get there, we need to learn what we can about the dimensions, properties, and functions of human greed, so that we might address the inevitable challenges that a socialist or communist arrangement would face. And here I'm not just talking about the people who disdain social welfare in favor of a voluntary system whereby they can feel morally superior for their charity. I'm also referring to the apparent fact that, for many people—and especially Americans—one can never have enough. By many cultural outlooks, we can reasonably suggest that excess has become, to a certain degree, necessity.
____________________
Notes:
° high-THC enema — You're welcome for that image. I realize it might take a bit of explanation, and it's a simple one. When I was in college, I remember watching a slide show in archaeology, and one of the images was a piece of intact pottery from Central America that depicted—I ... uh ... shit you not—a shaman receiving an hallucinogenic enema. Some said it was a particularly strong concentration derived from tobacco, but I'm more inclined toward something like magic mushroom tea. But, yes, it looked like they were putting something in his ass, and he was seeing spirits. I have no idea how expensive that would be at street prices, and as things are now, I would rather just smoke all of that pot, or eat as many of those mushrooms as I could.
Splinter Note — The posts in this thread are either copied or removed from "Should the government hire lobbyists to influence itself?", so that the digression does not sideline the original thread topic.
Last edited: