[Skybird]

Who does the dirty jobs that everybody hates, but that must be done?

How to decide ressource allocation if no economic standaridzation- by calculation ressources, time, cost-effect ratios in terms of money - is possible?

People act stupid, and selfish, not rational and altruistic. For thsi reason I already argue that most voters should be banned from a general right to vote. Voters must earn the right by contirbtuion, and must qualify by competence and knowledge, in an idela world. Why would I want to assume that if money must no more be earned, people would not live lazy and contra-productive? Heck, i even live like that myself since some years, since I can afford it!

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

Money is no god, I do not dance around it at all. But - it is a tool hat is indispensable in a complex world to make sure you can establish coplex prudction chains and have industrial mass-production in a scale capoable to fee and dress not just some hundreds, but severla billion people.

Just another one of these insance socialist follies that already were tried so iften, with brilliant ideas causing the starvation and dying of millions. Afterwards, the heaps of bodies mount high into the sky, and those who apllauded the dieas still will claim: it wa snot us, for they corruoted our brilliant conception, if only they wuld all have hinestly supported our vision, then it would have worked.

Two hundred years and over 150 million dead later, we really should know it better.

The world is no tiny, clean (and boring as hell) Star Trek city where you can lick food from the street, that clean it is. Its a dirty world, with chaotic events.

You want me to work, you pay me, give me a reward that is worth it for me. Just altruism and your idealistic vision is not worth it for me, so why should I work for just that?

And again, to not be misunderstood: money is a tool only, but an indispensable tool. The function it fulfills is what counts. You cannot replace it with nothing more than singing "Just do not be like you are, just be somebody different." That is not how the plebs works, that is not how humans are.

I recommend to read Gustave LeBon-The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, in which he concludes - correctly, I say - that crowds (societies) are not just a collection of individuals, but that crowds form their own super-individual dynamics. And these dynmics are what is against the idea of thinking that if you enobble the individuals you get a world of altruists that all are eager to come to each other's rescue.

And please, no talking now on that robots will take all the work. That is a.) in doubt for principle problems ith that idea, and b.) still would be decades and decades away.

And finally - and that may be the most important point in the long run - who says that a perfect world windeed would chnage people for th ebetter? I claim, and I man it serious: it would bring out the worst in man in unforseeable ammounts, right becasue he must not prove himself anymore and must not care anymore. Mill thught that pltical work would turn the plltical acting indivodual into a more responle, more ennobled being. When I see modern democracy at work, i see right the opposite being the rule today.

Money last but not least is an incentive, a convincing one. I claim yu need another incentive to repalc eit wiorth, if you take money out of this function. Not a sentimental, altruistic incentive, and certainly not pure force by a givenrment that tells people to work (that would be leader-related dictatorship again), but an incentive that respects and takes into account the nature of man as a a lfie form that fights to survive and that acts therefore necessarily egoist and selfish. You cannot get around that.

Money is a tool, not more, not less. But an indispensable one. I touched the econmic importanc eonly on the surface, but it should be obvious anyway. Try to run a mass-producing economy without such a tool. Communism and money-lessness only works in the sallest of smallest possible comunal contexts. And even then it tends to raise troubles sooner or later.