[p2p-research] Remote Assembly, Economy, & Work For Its Own Sake

[Ryan Lanham]

> But, my question to Nathan was:
>
> "how do we transition from a world dominated by money, to a world
> where humans operate with no money?"  What is a "plausible" way to do
> this, that most of the people in the world can actually start adopting
> right now, today?
>
> I argue that, while it may be an obvious fitting model, hyperinflation
> is not a "plausible" way to do this.
>
> "Plausible" comes to me as a language construct from Richard Slaughter
> of Swinburne Foresight Institute. Slaughter recommended that when we
> talk about alternative futures, that we (eventually) narrow down to
> what is plausible.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Futures-Beyond-Dystopia-Foresight-Education/dp/0415302706
>  Plausible meaning likely to happen based on everything we know about
> what is happening now, plus what we can reasonably project is emerging
> or will emerge. An implausible future is one that is envisioned and
> worked towards while ignoring the fact that billions of other people
> are already working towards a different envisioned future.
>

I don't know Slaughter's work.  If he is against dystopia, I am for his
work.  Still, there are planned outcomes and unplanned ones...the notorious
black swans of Nicholas Nassim Taleb.  Hyperinflations are a plausible
(indeed current) means by which money disappears by no longer working.  If
"plausible" is likely to happen, then I would argue hyperinflation is darn
plausible.

Here are some interesting questions for current theorists I would think:

A. Money stopped functioning in Zimbabwe.  Z. still exists.  What happened
that one can like and that one dislikes about the state of affairs there?
B. If the question is, how do people function when there is no money, it
seems a hyper-inflation would offer an excellent proxy.  Or would it not?
If not, why not?  Do people need to choose no money?
C. If the question is one of choice, do people need to continually reject
money?  What if a token system started for whatever reason...say as a means
of fun wagers?  Or, what if people instituted a government in a system where
there was no money and then started using it?  Would this be somehow wrong
or illogical?  If illogical, one needs to present to reasonable and
open-minded persons a logic by which it is illogical, I would think.

My own conclusion (which is always tentative) is that one can't envision a
logical free choice system without value tokens in a modern society because
money is useful.

One might however envision a system where people choose not to use money
because the political objectives of their society reject certain aspects of
life associated with money.   That is a political decision...like making
certain crimes illegal that need not be to have a reasonably civil and
functioning society...say, "vices" like smoking pot or gambling.

So, my view of what answers your question, Sam, is that the process is the
same as any politically transformative discussion.  How do you implement
anything?  Healthcare, reduced carbon, etc.  It isn't a question of
procedure...there is no process to design.  It is a question of political
transformation.

Perhaps I am still off-kilter, but I am attempting a legitimate answer as I
see it.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090831/032391de/attachment-0001.html>