The assumption is the worker has time preferences on the return of his labor.
Right, because he has no money to eat.
Its why the crapitalusts can pay low wages.
If your choice is to starve today or work for enough to eat, but little else, what would you do?
And you can look yourself in a mirror while claiming that the choice to work for slave wages, ie just enough to cover basics, is made voluntarily?
In most places you cant afford rent and food so you have to share slave quarters to eat.
You call that voluntarily working for a wage?
Smdh.
There is no proof that voluntaryism will end in a economic model where the products of labor are taken from the worker and distributed (or even distributed 'equally') by a social construct.
Ok, we are back to semantics.
Ancoms dont take, ancoms give freely.
The giving is in return for access to what is given.
Division of labor.
I give shoes and take out a lambo.
The lambo guy gives lambos and takes out tennis rackets.
The tennis racket guy gives rackets and takes out electricity.
The electric guy gives electricity and takes out a house.
Whomever is determined to be the rock stars get all the girls.
Probably engineers or plumbers.
I know i dont want to clean up shit for a living, but somebody has to do it, so the engineer that devises no touch sewers will be a household name and all the girls will swoon.
This is where your voluntary society will lead, mark my words.
Its the natural destination of not being ruled by a**holes.
Social distribution uncouples the motivation from the need. As Hoppe mentions, you get less resources.
So we engineer consent by glamourizing the professions we need most.
'Oh, those plumbers are the dreamiest!'
'I know, girl! When his plumbers butt came out i nearly creamed my jeans!'
'Lets go watch date a plumber!'
Youve got to remember, most folks dont bother to think on our level, they are too preoccupied with cat videos on the flashylight boxes.
They can, but they dont.
Just like today, madison avenue will control how things are done.
Probably always will.
'Minding your own business' is the only moral law of anarchy. So what gives ancom the moral authority to say who should or shouldn't work for who(and at what rate)?
We wont have to do that.
Either we offer a better deal or our plan fails.
Geez dude, you are getting better at making your argument.
;)
In the past you said something to the effect that communism and capitalism can not coexist. Do you still hold that position?
They are exclusive of each other, if i have no money to pay, i cant exist in a crapitalust town.
Without submitting to exploitation by working for less value than my labor creates.
Maybe you are just more open to where i am coming from.
How do you see them as completely exclusive. I mean even in capitalist towns, they take taxes from the workers and provide products for those that do not have money to pay. The welfare state has been up and running for decades, how do you see these not being a mix of capitalism and communism?
The reason I ask is I see a split in the population. Those that have ability, will choose the path that rewards ability. Those that have needs, will choose the path that rewards needs.
I don't see the path of needs being viable, as it just ends up in a big pool of need. I am not asking you to agree with that assumption, but just that you do see it as a possibility, and what are your thoughts on it.
Taking taxes for welfare isnt crapitalism, its socialism.
Were it up to the crapitalusts they would make you work for everything.
Absent the making part that isnt all bad.
Nobody should be a bum, imo.
I agree that the bums would end up sucking up enough to sink the ship.
This book goes into the details.
Without automation the bums would likely upset my apple cart, too.
Engineering the population will be important.
Many people on welfare today would be shamed into contributing.
Today there are barriers to working, papers, nairu, some people just arent up to the daily grind of a job, but would work, if only to escape the house, if there was a place they could go chip in on a voluntary basis.
People want to work, but they dont want to shave, spend their wages on clothes, kiss ass on some idiot, etc.
Im betting i can make my proposal fly with the right resources.
With enough people aware that they have the power to monkey wrench this bankster dystopia, it will be as easy as continuing to work while refusing to pay.
We have a bit of ambiguity in the term of socialism, one being a ideology, the other being the act of making something social, or distributing it socially, another wrapped up in social authority, another lending to social objectivity. But, for now, lets set that aside.
Also let's set aside the 'taking' part of taxation and see that you do agree about distribution. I think you can see it is a mixed system. I don't think either of us would like the system as a whole due to various reasons. One that bothers me is that the system tends to be a centrist position.
Why do you see social engineering as moral?
The rest of your comment doesn't really address the the question I was attempting to ask, and I am interested in your thoughts on it. I will try it in a different way.
If people of ability like the rewards of voluntary system X, and people of need like the rewards of voluntary system Y, how is system Y going to be anything but a system filled with need? You mention the right resources, but the need is going to be large, and most of the people of ability, and therefore much of the generated resources are going to be in system X.