Why do you see social engineering as moral?
You got a better way to raise children?
Do we just let them run amok and expect them not to stick the fork in the outlet?
What do we do when they are 30 and still on momma's couch?
.....
Once we take money off the table, how is x any different than y?
If we keep money, y cant get goods because x wont give them any for free.
If we do away with money, everything is free.
Those that would prefer x still get whatever they desire, for free.
Probably get to retire earlier, too.
They lose nothing choosing y, except neighbors wanting to jump their fence.
In fact, by choosing y they get access to luxury goods x refuses them to keep them trying harder.
Any chance you'll ever own a lambo under crapitalism's rules?
Realistically?
Retire at 50?
Jetset the world on a whim?
Sip mai tais in fiji two weeks a year?
All these things are accessible under y.
X sucks too much to the billionaires.
No surpluses accruing to the masses, only to the 1%.
Efficiency gains? More for the 1%.
Skip your vacation this year? More for the 1%.
Overtime on saturdays? More for the 1%.
Fewer paid vacation and sick days? More for the 1%.
I dont think you have fully grasped what we are playing for here.
You still think that you can think and grow rich, but the only thing you'll likely get knocking on the doors that could make you rich is escorted from the building.
Its a club, i aint in it, likely you aint in it, either.
Until we can get the people to stop embacing their slavery, this is what we get.
X'd out.
You continue to think money changes the outcome, even without money the productive people end up in X, and the needy end up in Y.
X offers 100% return on time and effort, Y offers much less than 76%.
How do you measure that without a form of money to establish value?
If those with ability have access to anything they want, instead of what they are allowed by their wages in world x, why would they reject y?
As long as the workers of x dance to the tune of the haves they wont be free.
They could join y, enjoy access to goods denied them by x, and not have to shave to get a job, just show up and work.
There is still a fact you are not grasping. Production, or in the marxist language 'ability' is limited. You only have a specific quantity of ability in the population, that amount is 100%. Needs can be infinite. So if you take away from that 100% of ability to fill a social need, the social need doesn't have to align with a personal need, and often times doesn't.
Measure is pretty simple in X if it is considered direct exchange, as the model I mentioned in the past. 100% value exchanged for 100%.
Y gets complicated, from listening to you describe your model for many weeks, whatever resource production, there will be approx. 8% for collective means of production upkeep plus a collective distribution scheme. 8% for the charity for bums. 8% for that free stuff and lambos the vanguards keep selling the model on.
Therefore the workers will not receive 100% of their time and effort returned, or will have to work extra to achieve the same amount of resources that X produces(especially if they don't care for bums or lambos).
X gets the productive workers all they want.
You are also assuming 'haves' in your ' dance to the tune' remark. In the direct exchange model there isn't a requirement of 'haves' existing. Your still assuming X will have social constructs. The X model will still strip all the productive workers even without social constructs.
Also requiring the workers to produce the 24% for social programs makes them less free to allocate those resources for something else.
That opens up problems in social objectivity of what a social system should produce, but i will save that topic for another time.