Yes. It has to a be non-inheritable currency though.
Here's why:
Once everybody's needs are met, there will be opportunity to produce luxury goods. However, not everybody values every good equally, and markets are very effective at solving this sort of problem.
It doesn't make sense to produce a set of camping gear for everybody - not everybody likes camping. Some people would rather their luxury consumption come in the form of eating out regularly. Others would rather produce their food at home but want to go on a vacation every few years. Others would want to save their surplus luxury spending for 20 years to buy a communist Lamborghini. Since it's not reasonable to design a society where everybody can have all of these things all of the time (we're in a climate crisis let's not forget, not to mention we'd all have to work more to make this happen), these items are naturally going to be scarce. If we allow everyone an equal luxury allowance that they can spend in accordance with their desires, people will weigh their relative desires themselves, giving society information on how much of each luxury consumable should be produced.
The central problem with money is that it can be accumulated and passed on through inheritance. A digital currency can prevent this and we can allow markets to exist in a cruelty-free manner where they benefit all of us.
I generally agree, but what if we got away from the idea of owning things and developed library communism where you could borrow a tent or a Lamborghini for the weekend. I could still see markets being used for this, like you get 100 luxury bucks per month and you can spend them on renting the Lamborghini or eating at a fancy restaurant or a camping trip
I mean, I have nothing against an expanded mandate for libraries, but I don't think personal property was ever the problem - private property is the problem and we should be sure not to confuse the two.
There are downsides to not owning my own tent - I only need to learn to assemble it once, I know I'm not going to get to a mountain top only to find there is a crucial missing piece, I can choose to go camping on a whim without first traveling to some centralized tent depository, I can count on my tent being available at any time (I never have to worry about all the tents being checked out), etc.
Yeah, if you really like camping and want to own a tent that's perfectly reasonable, especially if you put in a few shifts at the tent factory. But everyone should be able to borrow a tent for a weekend if they want to try out camping.
Lamborghinis are a lot more rare and valuable than tents, and it doesn't make as much sense for one person to own one exclusively. They're also almost exclusively owned by rich capitalists, so seizing all Lamborghinis and re-distributing them via library socialism seems fair to me.
Yes. It has to a be non-inheritable currency though.
Here's why:
Once everybody's needs are met, there will be opportunity to produce luxury goods. However, not everybody values every good equally, and markets are very effective at solving this sort of problem.
It doesn't make sense to produce a set of camping gear for everybody - not everybody likes camping. Some people would rather their luxury consumption come in the form of eating out regularly. Others would rather produce their food at home but want to go on a vacation every few years. Others would want to save their surplus luxury spending for 20 years to buy a communist Lamborghini. Since it's not reasonable to design a society where everybody can have all of these things all of the time (we're in a climate crisis let's not forget, not to mention we'd all have to work more to make this happen), these items are naturally going to be scarce. If we allow everyone an equal luxury allowance that they can spend in accordance with their desires, people will weigh their relative desires themselves, giving society information on how much of each luxury consumable should be produced.
The central problem with money is that it can be accumulated and passed on through inheritance. A digital currency can prevent this and we can allow markets to exist in a cruelty-free manner where they benefit all of us.
I generally agree, but what if we got away from the idea of owning things and developed library communism where you could borrow a tent or a Lamborghini for the weekend. I could still see markets being used for this, like you get 100 luxury bucks per month and you can spend them on renting the Lamborghini or eating at a fancy restaurant or a camping trip
I mean, I have nothing against an expanded mandate for libraries, but I don't think personal property was ever the problem - private property is the problem and we should be sure not to confuse the two.
There are downsides to not owning my own tent - I only need to learn to assemble it once, I know I'm not going to get to a mountain top only to find there is a crucial missing piece, I can choose to go camping on a whim without first traveling to some centralized tent depository, I can count on my tent being available at any time (I never have to worry about all the tents being checked out), etc.
Yeah, if you really like camping and want to own a tent that's perfectly reasonable, especially if you put in a few shifts at the tent factory. But everyone should be able to borrow a tent for a weekend if they want to try out camping.
Lamborghinis are a lot more rare and valuable than tents, and it doesn't make as much sense for one person to own one exclusively. They're also almost exclusively owned by rich capitalists, so seizing all Lamborghinis and re-distributing them via library socialism seems fair to me.