Moneyless Society

[afterzir]

I'm an an-cap, but some people advocate a moneyless society and I want to know how to refute some criticism/remarks of money.

 

1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical

 

2) Praxeology is built off of the notion that humans act to achieve goals (and use tools i.e. capital to help them achieve those goals).  Economics should be (this is over simplified) thought of binarily as did you achieve or not achieve your goal(s), and not on a number line (i.e. how much profit/loss occurred)

 

3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing

 

4) Without money people will be 100% internally motivated to work

 

5) The only true 'currencies' are time & attention

 

6) Without money copyright goes out the window (this assumes you find copyright undesirable)

 

Also, what is your definition of money?  The definitions I've heard of so far are:

a) medium of exchange

b) proof of work performed

c) an economic good (just like a bicycle)

d) a complexity mitigator (a way to handle millions of transactions)

 

Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days.  Is that true?

[Tyler Durden]

The question is not whether we need money or not, the question is about force.

 

If these people don't like money and don't want to use it, that's perfectly fine. But if they don't like money and want to force everyone else to stop using it too, then they're a bunch of assholes.

 

That's really all you need to know, any discussion beyond that point will simply be a waste of your time because these people are far from rational.

[Wuzzums]

If value is subjective therefore immeasurable then trade cannot possibly occur. And without trade we wouldn't even be here as a species in the first place. If I trade a banana for an apple I just measured the value of a banana to be that of an apple. Trade gives rise to money, and the fact that money is just easier to carry it doesn't mean a trade of goods did not occur.

[ParaSait]

The question is not whether we need money or not, the question is about force.

 

If these people don't like money and don't want to use it, that's perfectly fine. But if they don't like money and want to force everyone else to stop using it too, then they're a bunch of assholes.

 

That's really all you need to know, any discussion beyond that point will simply be a waste of your time because these people are far from rational.

It's useful to understand why it's rational for a free society to use money, though.

 

 

1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical

Why do we use money? It's pretty simple. I see money as kind of like oil that eases trade.

You see, when we barter, we both want something from each other that's of greater value. If I grow apples and you grow bananas, I feel like eating bananas and you feel like eating some apples. Well that's great, that's likely to result in a successful exchange. But this is unlikely to occur. If I feel like eating some bananas but you feel like eating some melons, we got a problem. Now I could go out and HOPE to find someone growing melons who happens to be interested in my apples, which is as unlikely as any successful barter, and THEN I can trade some melons with you, the problem would be solved. Wouldn't it be great, though, if we all agreed to accept some universal good in trade? I buy your bananas with gold and you buy your melons with that gold. It makes trade super efficient.

The second great thing about (sound) money besides being a medium of exchange is that it's a store of value. With money, I can choose to buy my bananas later. The bananas rot and decay, the money doesn't.

That's the most important part of this post.

 

3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing

This is why we have insurance The best thing about accidents, is that they're the exception and not the norm.

 

Also, what is your definition of money?

An economic good (it's a kind of tool that eases trade), a medium of exchange and a store of value.

 

Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days.  Is that true?

Yes, this is why you don't want the state to control it...!

Money can be traded for anything, so control over money means control over pretty much everything.

 

 

The rest of the points are either explained in that big chunk of text under 1), or just don't make sense.

 

 

 

EDIT: heh, funny that me & wuzzums both used an apples & bananas analogy.

[cynicist]

1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical

 

Value is subjective, but why does that make it unmeasurable? Are review sites for products or ratings for vendors illogical and meaningless? What about food preferences? Western food tops my list, with Asian and Mediterranean coming in after. Preferences themselves are ranked in our minds and the subjectivity of the results doesn't change that. Without some sort of lesser or greater value, what does preference actually mean?

 

2) Praxeology is built off of the notion that humans act to achieve goals (and use tools i.e. capital to help them achieve those goals).  Economics should be (this is over simplified) thought of binarily as did you achieve or not achieve your goal(s), and not on a number line (i.e. how much profit/loss occurred)

 

How do you measure how well you are meeting your goals without price?

 

3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing

 

I agree, let's allow hospitals to compete to provide cheaper care rather than artificially limiting how many hospitals can be built in a given area. 

 

4) Without money people will be 100% internally motivated to work

 

Without money, how do you measure what you are getting for the work you are putting in? How do you perform long term planning like deciding how much of a good you can have or the optimal time to get it? Without being able to answer those questions, I don't think most people would be motivated to work at all.

 

5) The only true 'currencies' are time & attention

 

I can't remember the last time Amazon accepted my time and attention in exchange for their products. Maybe you could define currency first and then explain how the following fits that definition? 

 

6) Without money copyright goes out the window (this assumes you find copyright undesirable)

 

Copyright exists because of laws and violence. Instead of getting rid of something that many people find extremely useful and beneficial to their lives, let's focus on how bad the laws or use of violence are.

 

7) Also, what is your definition of money?  The definitions I've heard of so far are:

 

It depends on the context of the discussion, but people most commonly refer to money as a medium of exchange. (although all of those definitions can apply)

 

8) Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days.  Is that true?

 

This is false. Money was created to facilitate the ease of exchange of goods and services. Fiat currency (money backed by government decree) was created and is still used as a tool for financing large scale wars through the mechanisms known as inflation and debt. Attempts to do such a thing to money before fiat currency was invented had much more immediate negative results, and therefore were not practical.

 

I tried to be concise but accurate, I hope my answers are useful.

[WorBlux]

1)If I trade you two sprockets for three widgets, that ratio is an objective and measurable quantity. It is true the value I get from the three widgets may be subjective. The monetary price of a thing speaks nothing of it's subjective value, but of a ratio used to effect recent and current trades. As price in money is a specific ratio seen in trade it's not by any means illogical to make note of the price of things, and then come to demand monetary holding via a subjective valuation of what might be purchased now or in the future.

 

 

2)Double entry accounting is one of the great inventions of the modern world, right up there with the printing press, fertilizer, vaccinations, and electricity.

 

Individually or in a group less than 5 a binary system could work, but the essential thing is that prices convey a great deal of information from distributed sources and conveys it as a single number so that a person might tell at a glance whether or not an undertaking in a certain enterprise will be valued by other people.

 

3)Death, illness, and disease is also disturbing even when adequate treatment is available. Assuming the price isn't artificially high because of governmental regulation and interference, (which it is, perhaps 5X or more a freed market price)the high price is a signal for the need of innovation.

 

4)This seems to be a recipe for narcissism and other various personality disorders. We are wired to deal with external challenges, and without a reality check from time to time it's possible to go off into crazy. The external motivations require a person look outward and see how his skills might best bring value to his community. Even in the absence of money It is reasonable to assume people would look for and seek out other external motivators (fame, popularity, fashinon, sex, positions of power ... in other words, high school all over again)

 

5)Your time and attention are inalienable, and as such make a very poor means of exchange. At best you create a time bank or credit ledger for time spent in "useful" endeavours. However again without a monetary system it's very difficult to define quite what is useful and what is not.

 

6)Actually this does not follow. Copyright is a monopoly granted to an author over the copying or modification of a creative work. You still have barter or the aforementioned High School BS. Eg. To get ZZtops next album, grow a beard of 6" or more in length and send a picture to ...

 

Also, what is your definition of money?  The definitions I've heard of so far are:

a) medium of exchange

b) proof of work performed

c) an economic good (just like a bicycle)

d) a complexity mitigator (a way to handle millions of transactions)

 

Money is simply the most common media of exchange in a society. (common by distribution and use, and not by some physical quantity)

 

While it is and economic good, it's a specific sort, it also must be a commodity. (Traded with no distinguishment between the specific units thereof.)

 

Indirect exchange arose as a complexity mitigator, in such respect all media of exchange provide the same sort of function.

 

I really doubt money was created simply for military salaries. Specifically coinage with heads + tails was first associated with empires, but goods can stand in a money without being formally coined. So it's true only if you limit your definition of money to a certain outward form rather than the praxeological understanding. It's also unlikely that that empires could or would seek to coopt or standardize indirect trade unless there was already and extensive practice of it.

[tasmlab]

I'm an an-cap, but some people advocate a moneyless society and I want to know how to refute some criticism/remarks of money.

 

1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical

 

2) Praxeology is built off of the notion that humans act to achieve goals (and use tools i.e. capital to help them achieve those goals).  Economics should be (this is over simplified) thought of binarily as did you achieve or not achieve your goal(s), and not on a number line (i.e. how much profit/loss occurred)

 

3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing

 

4) Without money people will be 100% internally motivated to work

 

5) The only true 'currencies' are time & attention

 

6) Without money copyright goes out the window (this assumes you find copyright undesirable)

 

Also, what is your definition of money?  The definitions I've heard of so far are:

a) medium of exchange

b) proof of work performed

c) an economic good (just like a bicycle)

d) a complexity mitigator (a way to handle millions of transactions)

 

Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days.  Is that true?

 

Check out the first dozen or so pages of Rothbard's "What has government done to our money", if you haven't already.  It's a fun read, you can download it for free, and he makes simple arguments probably better than most of us can.  (sorry in advance for this non-answer)

[AustinJames]

I'm an an-cap, but some people advocate a moneyless society and I want to know how to refute some criticism/remarks of money.

 

I wouldn't bother.  How currency would be used (or not) in a free society is an interesting quandary, but it's really not worth arguing about, in my mind.  If someone thinks that currency is illogical (sophistry, I'd say), they are more than welcome (in a free society) to refrain from its use.  If that person wants to initiate force to stop me using currency, then the argument shifts to the non-aggression principle.  It would be similar to me if someone were trying to argue that "roads are inefficient and illogical!"  They may be right!  I don't know.  I could come up with a lot of reasons roads should exist, but the debate isn't worth my intellectual energy.  Moreover, we'll never really know the best way to deal with social problems until we're free to implement these opposing ideas.  Once we are free, the market will dictate the best system without the need for a debate.

 

 

 

1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical

 

This is sophistry.  Though subjective, relative value is explicitly measurable in any voluntary transaction.  If a man trades a pencil for an apple, the man who receives the pencil values it more than the apple.  The man receives the apple values it more than the pencil.