Theres a difference I’m aware under your hypothetical thats whats providing necessities

Many possible routes, mostly just focused on creating the next best system. We can figure out details as we get closer to an ideal

You can only 'have everyone have what they need' through forcing all individuals to be doing their part.
When you have individuals able to own their own thing, they are able to take Care of it, and possibly produce off of It. This case being land.

Said production may serve to fuel voluntary transactions or exchanges.

What do you say to people who get piercings? Do you have a big ethical breakdown over that?

Hellfish thats a 2017 argument

lel

Reddit moved passed that

You're comparing piercings to genital mutilation, besides, this debate ended hours ago.

arE bOdy taTtOs uNetHiCal CaUse tHeY aRe boDy mUtilAtIoN

Didn't they already say they dislike people with piercings, I thought you two already went over that

Who said I would be forcing anybody to do anything? You can make incentives. I'm not completely opposed to limited markets y'know

The only fair is Laissez Faire

So let's make a system that can do that.

Limiting markets is limiting the potential of innovation and creation of new wealth.

There's a reason why for many centuries, people owned approximatelly less than USD$1 per hour, and then suddenly, experienced a growth-

So....anarchy. Laissez-Faire.

<a:big_think:782436322064465943>

I'm an anarchist yes

What does that resemble.

Read spinoza <:troll:692158602256973864>

I'm against lassez-faire *capitalism*

In the same way I'm against dictators being allowed to do what they want

How do you have. Laissez-Faire socialism?
That'll just evolve onto capitalism. Lol.

Market socialism does that

Democracy doesn't have to collapse to dictatorship, no

The most stable democracies are those that disperse power

Democracy, is simply the tyranny of the majority.

That's the best capitalism, little government interference in the markets

**No rulers.**

Innovation is driven by many, many things beyond market pressures. The Wright Brothers only took flight because they were promised government bounty. The Soviets were way ahead of the US for more of the Space Race. This growth came before modern capitalism, and will continue well past it.

Based

Gross and wrong but okay

The Wright Brothers, did so without using government money, though.
Their competitors did. And they did so because there was a...***demand***, even If forced by government.

Right so

That was government making incentive

This system can exist even if necessities are public goods

I'm not against a market for luxuries between now and when automation can provide for a post-scarcity society.

Just if economic governmentation must exist, which is what a business is, it ought to be made in democratic fashion

Post-scarcity is a fantasy

Perhaps, and if such then my plans for systems after a democratic market will simply have to rest

But I don't believe this to be meaningfully the case