NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been considering this possibility for some time, and thought it might be worth floating it here on NSG to see what you might think and how you might respond. Also, if anyone has any interesting reading material or suggestions of their own, please put them forward!


It's obvious that experiments in the pure forms of both Socialism and Capitalism have been failures. Russia's Communism was oppressive and stagnant, while Capitalism is ruthlessly apathetic towards human suffering and only develops through the aim to profit.

Nowadays, most systems attempt to adopt some compromise, but essentially, the leaning is still towards Capitalism with a little bit of Socialist welfare - the management of which is generally regarded as inept and wasteful to the Capitalists and the need to compete regarded as similarly unnecessary and wasteful to the Socialists. Might it be possible to redress the balance in such a way that the two systems can take advantage of their distinct benefits without negatively affecting each other?

I believe so. The problem, as I see it, is that both systems seek to control necessity and luxury under the same exchange mechanism. There are certain things that need to be done by society, and that while a certain amount of choice can be granted to individuals, this choice must not be allowed to come at the expense of inaction with those who cannot afford any of the choices put on offer. However, it is unreasonable to control the availability of choice of how an individual chooses to spend their free time, to force them to be productive in contributing to things that are entirely arbitrary just to maintain the system of trade, or to repress the individual's ability to even have free time in order to get things done.

Ideally, we would have a socialist system to deal with the things that are essential to life, and a capitalist one to deal with everything else.

The current compromise of the western world can be regarded as a Socialist Hack of Capitalism. We take some proportion of what people earn freely as taxation and redistribute that in order to bring about public service. However, as has been pointed out by the anti-taxation lobby, this means that too much of what people work for ends up going towards the maintenance of the bureaucracy of the system of redistribution, and not enough towards actually getting things done.

What I would like to propose is a slightly different variation on that hack. The existence of the state remains the provision of essential public service (and the extent of service provided by the state is up for discussion), but rather than taking taxation, the service instead takes some proportion of each individual's Actual Labour. That is to say, each individual is obligated to perform some kind of part-time public service for a standard proportion of their time (that may be as much or as little as is necessary to provide the extent of the services agreed upon), and as payment for this service, they get full and free usage of the services that the state provides.

Time is one of the few resources whose value transcends simple human subjectivity. It is invaluable, and its invalue is unchanging, but yet, it is quantifiable. Consequently, an economy based on Time is not subject to sentiment, to manipulation or to deception. An hour of your time is just as long as an hour of anybody else's time, and the amount of time taken from people can thus be compared to ensure that no demands are made unfairly based on ability, social standing or history.

With this new idea in mind, it is the State's duty to try to accomplish as much public service as possible with as little investment of time as possible. And the reason why it must do this is simple - if People do not like the way you are balancing time with result, they will simply form or join another state. It is in the peoples' interests to join a state whereby their basic needs can be met with as little input of their own as possible, so it's in the State's interests to maintain a system where this is satisfactorily the case. Conversely, however, if the individual is not willing to contribute a fair share of labour, then they will not be able to benefit from any public service, and so it's also in the peoples' interests to join a state, and the one where their contribution can be best utilised.

What might such a state do? Well, as I've said, there's flexibility on that, and the continuing tension between accomplishment and minimalism is in part what causes continued growth in the Labour state. I would say that there are some things like Education, Medicine, Construction, Transport, Energy production and Policing that we could agree on, and also argue that there's a lot that would currently be considered "Volunteer Work" that could be covered as well. Controversially, I would suggest that resource acquisition, nutrition and housing might also be valid public services, and that each State would need its own R&D department too.

The key here is that we acknowledge that these things get done because they need to get done, and that rather than everyone raising the money for some people to do them, we reanalyze it in such a way that everyone helps to get them done through an investment of only as much time as is needed to do them.

What do you think? Would such a system be maintainable? Why might you disagree with the approach? Has such an experiment ever been attempted and failed?

So... um... basically the New Deal. Except not as feasible.

Uh, so in exchange for eliminating taxation, you're making labor a currency with which people buy membership in a nation. Which means you're losing some of the efficiency of the market, in return for...what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

So... um... basically the New Deal. Except not as feasible.
I'm not proposing doing this as a method of economic regeneration. In fact, I would argue in favour of total financial independence of the banks from the state rather than new-deal-style Corporate-Political co-operative economy. The problem with the economy at the minute, for instance, is not that it has collapsed, but that in collapsing, it will cause people hardship.

What I'm suggesting is that in matters in which the state services should be involved, money shouldn't come into it. We agree on what needs to be done, the state is given license to do it, and everyone in the state plays some direct role in doing it.

Also, could you elaborate on the infeasibility of it? What about it do you think makes it unimplementable?

I don't think it's feasible because you're taking a communist state and tacking it onto a laissez-faire capitalist system. Neither system works on its own, they won't work when relegated to separate spheres and stuck together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
Your link is broken, but broadly speaking I don't think the labor theory of value is something you can force onto a market.

Uh, so in exchange for eliminating taxation, you're making labor a currency with which people buy membership in a nation. Which means you're losing some of the efficiency of the market, in return for...what?
You're losing less market efficiency than you would be doing in a system whereby taxation goes towards those members of the state that cannot support themselves in pure free market economics, while justifying that support by utilising the labour of these people for the benefit of that system.

Basically, it keeps the spongers off while still being socially progressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
Interesting! I think in some sense, its attempts to control finance and banking would be both unnecessary and unhelpful, but it's a good point to start from. Thanks!

I'm not proposing doing this as a method of economic regeneration. In fact, I would argue in favour of total financial independence of the banks from the state rather than new-deal-style Corporate-Political co-operative economy. The problem with the economy at the minute, for instance, is not that it has collapsed, but that in collapsing, it will cause people hardship.

What I'm suggesting is that in matters in which the state services should be involved, money shouldn't come into it. We agree on what needs to be done, the state is given license to do it, and everyone in the state plays some direct role in doing it.

Also, could you elaborate on the infeasibility of it? What about it do you think makes it unimplementable?

Um... just about the entire thing.

You're losing less market efficiency than you would be doing in a system whereby taxation goes towards those members of the state that cannot support themselves in pure free market economics, while justifying that support by utilising the labour of these people for the benefit of that system.

Taxation does not reduce market efficiency. It simply redistributes income. Government is only inefficient because of its inherent bureaucracy, which exacting taxes in the form of labor will not reduce.

You also lose comparative advantage by mandating labor from people.

I don't think it's feasible because you're taking a communist state and tacking it onto a laissez-faire capitalist system. Neither system works on its own, they won't work when relegated to separate spheres and stuck together.
The reasons they don't work on their own are precisely because they do satisfy different spheres of human activity. Communism rightly accepts that human needs are unfortunately not optional, while Capitalism is fantastic at dealing with those things that are.

I'm not saying that people oscillate between the two. Humans are dualistic creatures - on one hand, we have material needs that must be satisfied for our continued existence, while on the other, we have pleasures, interests and goals. Capitalism and Communism deal with the different perspectives of this dualism, so the Dialectic approach to synthesize the two would be a reasonable approach, no?

The reasons they don't work on their own are precisely because they do satisfy different spheres of human activity. Communism rightly accepts that human needs are unfortunately not optional, while Capitalism is fantastic at dealing with those things that are.

I'm not saying that people oscillate between the two. Humans are dualistic creatures - on one hand, we have material needs that must be satisfied for our continued existence, while on the other, we have pleasures, interests and goals. Capitalism and Communism deal with the different perspectives of this dualism, so the Dialectic approach to synthesize the two would be a reasonable approach, no?

What we have now is a synthesized approach--limited government regulation of the economy and redistribution through taxation. There are systemic problems with pure capitalism and pure communism, which is why a synthesis that simply tacks the two systems onto each other will not work.

Um... just about the entire thing.
Could you explain, perhaps, by stating where you think an implementation would fail?

Taxation does not reduce market efficiency. It simply redistributes income. Government is only inefficient because of its inherent bureaucracy, which exacting taxes in the form of labor will not reduce.
Ah, but it will, and here's why: You no longer need to pay government employees. Work with the civil service and whatever legislative branch exists are part of the extraction of labour. People working for the government aren't working for a wage - they're doing it to accomplish the state's work as efficiently as possible so that they have more free time for themselves. Consequently, it is part of the aim of Civil servants to minimise this bureaucracy, because in doing so, it will reduce the demand on civil servants.

Oh, and you don't mandate labour from people. The Free market still exists - like a sort of entirely legal and public black market. The State simply doesn't support those people that don't contribute to the State - it doesn't have any influence whatsoever over those that don't interact with it (presumably except in as much as the service it provides includes defense and/or security).

Ah, but it will, and here's why: You no longer need to pay government employees. Work with the civil service and whatever legislative branch exists are part of the extraction of labour. People working for the government aren't working for a wage - they're doing it to accomplish the state's work as efficiently as possible so that they have more free time for themselves. Consequently, it is part of the aim of Civil servants to minimise this bureaucracy, because in doing so, it will reduce the demand on civil servants.Eliminating wages isn't going to increase productivity. And as I said, it will require central planning and you lose the benefit of competitive advantage.

Oh, and you don't mandate labour from people. The Free market still exists - like a sort of entirely legal and public black market. The State simply doesn't support those people that don't contribute to the State - it doesn't have any influence whatsoever over those that don't interact with it (presumably except in as much as the service it provides includes defense and/or security).That means that anyone who does not receive a net benefit from the state will refuse to join it, thereby eliminating any sort of redistributive power it has.

Eliminating wages isn't going to increase productivity.
Not of itself, but the impetus to maintain an unproductive bureaucracy is removed when your personal aim is to work for as short an amount of time as possible while still getting things done that need to be done. Furthermore, the system of waging at present creates a hesitancy to industrialise that would be eliminated in this suggestion - you are not depriving people of their livelihood by replacing their work with new technology; in fact, eliminating human effort from the agreed satisfaction of public service would be a fantastic state of affairs.

That means that anyone who does not receive a net benefit from the state will refuse to join it, thereby eliminating any sort of redistributive power it has.
True, but we're not primarily talking redistribution here. People have whatever capital they have, and that is of no concern to us (unused land might be a different story, but you could simply allow the owner to be given the capital value of that land and make it public). We do not aim at making poor people rich in this situation - we aim at providing the base standard of living for all, independent of their financial station, from which they may then go on to earn their fortune, pursue academia, be entertained, discover God, socialise or whatever.

There is still inevitably going to be a rich-poor divide. I don't seek to challenge that divide; I simply seek to render it unimportant.

Not of itself, but the impetus to maintain an unproductive bureaucracy is removed when your personal aim is to work for as short an amount of time as possible while still getting things done that need to be done. Furthermore, the system of waging at present creates a hesitancy to industrialise that would be eliminated in this suggestion - you are not depriving people of their livelihood by replacing their work with new technology; in fact, eliminating human effort from the agreed satisfaction of public service would be a fantastic state of affairs.That's the theory behind communism. It doesn't work. You're requiring a certain amount of labor but you're eliminating the ability to price that labor based on its marginal value. In fact, I see no way to quantitatively measure labor in your system. So ultimately you're not creating any greater inducement to productivity, if not reducing it.


True, but we're not primarily talking redistribution here. People have whatever capital they have, and that is of no concern to us (unused land might be a different story, but you could simply allow the owner to be given the capital value of that land and make it public). We do not aim at making poor people rich in this situation - we aim at providing the base standard of living for all, independent of their financial station, from which they may then go on to earn their fortune, pursue academia, be entertained, discover God, socialise or whatever.

There is still inevitably going to be a rich-poor divide. I don't seek to challenge that divide; I simply seek to render it unimportant.

See, but any form of welfare is redistribution. If entry into that system is optional, then anyone who does not receive net benefit from it will opt out. Suppose Bill Gates decides that he is so wealthy that entering into the government system isn't worth it for him. Then that means that the burden is spread over other wealthy people, and it becomes less worth it for them. So some of them drop out. And so on.

... In fact, I see no way to quantitatively measure labor in your system.
There is always a quantitative measurement of labour. Time. You might argue that the time spent as a trained Doctor is worth more than time spent as a street cleaner, which is entirely true, but then the point is that with a principle of the equal contribution of Time, each individual would need to work as long as a cleaner as they would as a GP. It would be in the cleaner's interests to train (under public education) to be a GP, because then neither he nor anybody else would have to work as long as they did if he was a sweeper. Conversely, if everyone was a GP, and the sweepers needed an excessively long time to clean the roads, then the GPs would have to overcontribute to the point where it would be advantageous to them to work for some of their contributed time cleaning streets.

See, but any form of welfare is redistribution. If entry into that system is optional, then anyone who does not receive net benefit from it will opt out.
Okay, sure, but if the system is comprehensive enough, includes enough people and is based on the idea of minimising effort, then the relative benefit from the work that is done (namely, full and free use of the services provided) is worth the investment. Imagine, for instance, that for 10 hours a week of your time, you could have free meals, transport, energy, telecommunications, contribute to maintaining public security and cleanliness, comprehensive healthcare, perhaps a roof over your heads, and maintain all of the above on behalf of your children. Wouldn't that be worth the time?

(Incidentally, I've no idea how much time it would take to do all of that, but given that we work in the UK for 44 hours a week on average, basic rate of taxation is 22% and assuming that the salaries of all citizens in public service and all job seekers' benefits can be negated, I'd say 10-20 hours is probably a reasonable estimate forgoing inevitable industrialisation)

Suppose Bill Gates decides that he is so wealthy that entering into the government system isn't worth it for him. Then that means that the burden is spread over other wealthy people, and it becomes less worth it for them. So some of them drop out. And so on.
By the way, couldn't I equally apply this argument to taxation?

By the way, couldn't I equally apply this argument to taxation?

You could if taxes were optional. Which they aren't.

There is always a quantitative measurement of labour. Time.So people are rewarded for taking a long time to do something instead of being efficient.

Okay, sure, but if the system is comprehensive enough, includes enough people and is based on the idea of minimising effort, then the relative benefit from the work that is done (namely, full and free use of the services provided) is worth the investment. Imagine, for instance, that for 10 hours a week of your time, you could have free meals, transport, energy, telecommunications, contribute to maintaining public security and cleanliness, comprehensive healthcare, perhaps a roof over your heads, and maintain all of the above on behalf of your children. Wouldn't that be worth the time?If everyone worked 10 hours a week, I don't see us being able to provide all of those things to everyone for free.

You could if taxes were optional. Which they aren't.
Paying taxes to anyone in particular is. I don't have to pay my taxes to the government of the United Kingdom; if I wanted, I could move somewhere and pay taxes to someone else. Or I could move to the Cayman Islands and pay almost no tax at all. The principle here is the same; if you don't want to reap the rewards, you're under no obligation to participate. It's because people like a particular compromise that they choose to contribute.

So people are rewarded for taking a long time to do something instead of being efficient.
Not any more than if they did it in a short time. The only things that change are that they're being unfairly demanding on other people and that they have less free time of their own.

If everyone worked 10 hours a week, I don't see us being able to provide all of those things to everyone for free.
The obvious point being that the only thing people would be doing for those 10 hours would be directly involved in that provision. It's probably an optimistic estimate, but I don't imagine it would actually be more than 20.

And remember, it's not free. They're paying for it with their contribution of labour.

It's called "The UK economy". S'alright.

Paying taxes to anyone in particular is. I don't have to pay my taxes to the government of the United Kingdom; if I wanted, I could move somewhere and pay taxes to someone else. Or I could move to the Cayman Islands and pay almost no tax at all. The principle here is the same; if you don't want to reap the rewards, you're under no obligation to participate. It's because people like a particular compromise that they choose to contribute.
But you can't live in the U.K. and participate in its economy and not pay taxes. Which is what could happen under your system, since you've said there will still be a free/black market outside of your communist system.


Not any more than if they did it in a short time. The only things that change are that they're being unfairly demanding on other people and that they have less free time of their own.So now you're not measuring it in time--you're measuring it in something else. How will you determine the value of peoples' labor?

The obvious point being that the only thing people would be doing for those 10 hours would be directly involved in that provision. It's probably an optimistic estimate, but I don't imagine it would actually be more than 20.

And remember, it's not free. They're paying for it with their contribution of labour.

Under our current system, everyone works at least 40-50 hours per week on average, often more. And your system would produce the same goods and services, but with a 20 hour workweek? What makes you think that productivity will double?

Under our current system, everyone works at least 40-50 hours per week on average, often more. And your system would produce the same goods and services, but with a 20 hour workweek? What makes you think that productivity will double?
Hold on, I'm not suggesting that this will produce the same goods and services, or even the same amount. Like I said before, we're not aiming at giving everyone a lifestyle of wealth. There are things like art, multimedia entertainment, fast cars, cigarettes and alcohol and so on that may, or may not, be covered by people in their free time. If you want a life that features these things, you'll need to earn through the market to cover them. However, since you don't need to pay any money on your own well-being, and since the state will be taking no taxation from what you earn, every penny you make here goes into luxuries and comforts for yourself.

See what I'm getting at? By splitting necessity from luxury, anything you earn for yourself is yours without interference by any third party. Luxuries will still get made because people want them, and people will earn money making luxury items and providing luxurious services in order to get other such goods and services, but the failure of either of these does not have dramatic consequences in an individual's fundamental well-being as it does in both Communism and Capitalism. What's more, in earning things purely for your own luxury, you are free to experiment and innovate, because you'd have no fear of failing to keep yourself alive in doing so.

But you can't live in the U.K. and participate in its economy and not pay taxes. Which is what could happen under your system, since you've said there will still be a free/black market outside of your communist system.
True. But I don't see this as being a problem. People might quite happily participate in the free market without participating in the state. The state doesn't support the free market in my system, nor is the reverse true - the free market is just there, and whatever happens to it affects people only in as much as they rely on it.

The key thing is that if everyone working for some amount of time means that the individual benefit to a member of the state exceeds that of the same amount of time in the free market, there is no reason not to spend some time helping the state out, and however much other time they want earning through the market beyond what they gain from the state.

So now you're not measuring it in time--you're measuring it in something else. How will you determine the value of peoples' labor?
I still think Time is the fundamental factor in this, but I see what you're getting at. I would be entirely justified in this in saying that the decision of how long a given task takes with the appropriate skills and knowledge is actually that of those with that appropriate skill and knowledge, but I suppose that sounds like a cop-out.

Presumably, the governance of this state would be in part representative of the body politic as a whole and in part representative of the individual professions. In keeping with the Dualist theme I have going on here, perhaps a two-house strategy would be appropriate?

I'm not convinced that requiring people to work for necessities for everyone would be more efficient than simply paying for those necessities with taxes. Part of it is that switching things around like that isn't going to make people more productive, especially since there's no real way of measuring peoples' labor-time and inducing them to maximize its value.

The other problem is rule of competitive advantage, which basically says people should do what they're best at. Suppose you're the best toy maker in the country. You can produce $20 worth of toys in an hour. And suppose I'm the best farmer in the country. I can produce $20 worth of food in an hour. Under the market system, you make toys and I produce food. Then we can sell our stuff to each other, so for an hour's work we can each end up with $20 worth of goods.

But under your system, you would be required to help produce food because toys are non-essential. You're not as good at producing food--you can only produce $10 worth an hour. And when we're done producing food, I'll use my extra time to produce toys. Except I only produce $10 worth an hour. So we end up producing $15 an hour each, instead of $20.

I vote that my labor be smacking sense into the people who think everyone should be forced to do public service.

I'm not convinced that requiring people to work for necessities for everyone would be more efficient than simply paying for those necessities with taxes. Part of it is that switching things around like that isn't going to make people more productive, especially since there's no real way of measuring peoples' labor-time and inducing them to maximize its value.

The other problem is rule of competitive advantage, which basically says people should do what they're best at. Suppose you're the best toy maker in the country. You can produce $20 worth of toys in an hour. And suppose I'm the best farmer in the country. I can produce $20 worth of food in an hour. Under the market system, you make toys and I produce food. Then we can sell our stuff to each other, so for an hour's work we can each end up with $20 worth of goods.

But under your system, you would be required to help produce food because toys are non-essential. You're not as good at producing food--you can only produce $10 worth an hour. And when we're done producing food, I'll use my extra time to produce toys. Except I only produce $10 worth an hour. So we end up producing $15 an hour each, instead of $20.
Woot, hypothetical scenarios! Gotta love an example or two.

The obvious first issue is that food isn't the only essential thing, and toys aren't the only non-essential things. I appreciate you're using them as shorthands, but it seems like a somewhat simplistic way of looking at ability. Why would you want to work in manufacturing toys (indeed, could you be employed to do so?) when your skill in food production might be useful in a restaurant? And why would I want to work producing food when what makes me good at producing toys is the sort of skill that might be useful in engineering? In which case, we're both making as much use of our abilities as we were beforehand.

Is there an example of non-transferrable ability? Well, yes, I suppose there is in the creative arts, but then again, creative artists are not renowned for their earning power.

Secondly, I think it might be useful to analyse what we're talking about when we refer to the worth of goods. What is a Toy Worth? How would you comparatively evaluate the worth of a Toy and a Steak Dinner? And let's kick it up a notch - How much is the M1 Motorway worth? Obviously, it has value, since people use it to get from place to place, and it is also continuously being relaid and repaired, but is it possible to put a financial sum on its current value?

One of the problems we have at the minute is that financial value is based around highly arbitrary sentiment. This laptop I'm writing to you from does everything it did when I first bought it 4 years ago, and yet it would be worth less than 1/10 of what I paid for it. That's simply because technology has advanced to the stage whereby it can be designed more intricately. Its increase in worth has nothing to do with the sort of value we attribute to a carrot and everything to do with the sort of value we attribute to a painting.

I would argue that, yet again, we are dealing with a dualistic system of value here, such that it is senseless to compare the value of an Action Man with that of a Potato. One advantage in adopting this appropriately dualist system of exchange is that we don't have to. Potato-Value is exchanged for Potatoes, and Action Man-Value is exchanged for Action Men.

Point the third, of course, deals with the question of Competitive Advantage, and how it could, in theory, contradict your point. Let us suppose, for example, that I am not necessarily the best at making toys, but that I am the best in the entire world at making the sort of Victorian-era wooden toys. Obviously, I'm in a different market altogether here, dealing more with the middle-class suburbanites looking for ornaments rather than the original point of my skill which was to entertain kids. However, although there is nobody better than me at this, and although this is the most developed of my skills, I might earn as little as $7 an hour, because that's as much as people are willing to pay.

What your point would argue is that because I'm the best, and I have a sustainable advantage that nobody else can meet, that's what I should do. However, it is actually not in my interests to work for $7 an hour when I can, as an inept farmer, make $10, since $7 an hour is not enough of a return for me as a craftsman to sustain my home and living. Furthermore, because people are only willing to pay that much, we can say that it is objectively the case that my time would be better spent in food production. So why, if I have this competitive advantage, do I have to use it? The answer is, in fact, that I don't, and I would be wasting my abilities in food production to do so.

We could argue about whether $7 an hour for the best wooden crafted toys ever made is a reasonable valuation. You might argue that if I can sell it for $15 to enough gullible customers then that's what it's worth, or I might argue that the reason I sell it for $7 is because that's what it takes to convince people to spend their money. We might even agree that I could use my crafts to make decent (thought not quite artistic) furniture and up my wage to $20, which would be a far better use of my skill with wood. The point of the matter is, having competitive advantage is not enough to justify my action. The outcome of what I do needs to be worth it. And, as I've suggested earlier, the basis of whether or not the outcome is worth the effort is entirely that of sentiment.

Here's what I think - there is no reason why sentiment should drive the satisfaction of necessity. Essentially, what we are saying if we think that is that "I am allowed to continue to exist on the whim of my peers". That is not what society is for; we are not just playthings for the next guy. Similarly, there is no reason why the satisfaction of necessity should manipulate sentiment. That's like saying "You all enjoy what you do because I need to continue living".

The simple fact is that, yes, I should do what I'm best at in life. However, if what I'm best at in life is to make things that help people live, I shouldn't be farmed for their perusal. Similarly, if what I'm best at in life is to make things that people enjoy, then I shouldn't be forced to fight simply for my own survival. My luxury and my needs are two separate things, but both of them are things that I have and that everyone else has too. Society exists because people can help each other satisfy their needs and because people can help each other have a good time. One does not govern the other, and I think the Dualist approach is one way of preventing that from happening.

I vote that my labor be smacking sense into the people who think everyone should be forced to do public service.
Again, no force is involved in this proposal. You don't have to do it. It's just that if you don't, you shouldn't expect the benefits derived from contributing.

In many respects, that's one of its strengths. If your benefiting from the state is directly the response of how much work you put in, then you can opt in and opt out whenever you like.

It's also true that this concept of state means that scale of geography doesn't need to come into it. A State can be as big as a global community or as small as a village, as long as you're prepared to deal with the difficulties of a lack of diversity in labour or the organisational task of a huge membership.

It's obvious that experiments in the pure forms of both Socialism and Capitalism have been failures. Russia's Communism was oppressive and stagnant, while Capitalism is ruthlessly apathetic towards human suffering and only develops through the aim to profit.
You do realise that your point against the Soviet system is real and objective, while your point about capitalism is your own value judgement, right?

Time is one of the few resources whose value transcends simple human subjectivity. It is invaluable, and its invalue is unchanging, but yet, it is quantifiable. Consequently, an economy based on Time is not subject to sentiment, to manipulation or to deception. An hour of your time is just as long as an hour of anybody else's time, and the amount of time taken from people can thus be compared to ensure that no demands are made unfairly based on ability, social standing or history.
But it's not based on time. It's based on labour, and the labour of one person is worth a lot more than that of another. If you force the most brilliant man on earth to do an hour's work, and do the same with the most useless man on earth - how can you claim both contributed equally?

Your system takes everything that is wrong about the welfare state and makes it more obvious.

In many respects, that's one of its strengths. If your benefiting from the state is directly the response of how much work you put in, then you can opt in and opt out whenever you like.
Have you ever heard of the freerider problem?

*snip snip snip snip snip*

Ideally, we would have a socialist system to deal with the things that are essential to life, and a capitalist one to deal with everything else.

*snip snip snip snip snip*
This I agree with completely. Now, what "essential to life" means is a little tricky (is a "living wage" essential to life? education?), but food, shelter...the fact that not everyone has these is wrong.
I don't know about the actual implementation. Part of the reason capitalism still exists in some form while communism is mostly dead is that capitalism just sort of happened, whereas any radical revolution is going to take a lot of work. Replacing taxation with labor is going to have logistical problems from the beginning, not even considering whether it would work in theory.

1. Yes, it's a highly simplified exampled designed to explain the concept. The fact that it's complex in real life shows how hard it would be to centrally plan, which is why the market is the most efficient system.

2. The value of goods is based on how much people want them. You can compare the market of value of any item to any other item, be it a potato or action figure. That's what makes the market work.

3. If people don't want your stuff, then you should do something else. If your food production is worth more than your wooden toys, then you produce the food. If people really want your handmade stuff, then they'll pay more money for it. If not, then someone who can do it more efficiently with machines will make them. That's how the market works.

This I agree with completely. Now, what "essential to life" means is a little tricky (is a "living wage" essential to life? education?), but food, shelter...the fact that not everyone has these is wrong.
I don't know about the actual implementation. Part of the reason capitalism still exists in some form while communism is mostly dead is that capitalism just sort of happened, whereas any radical revolution is going to take a lot of work. Replacing taxation with labor is going to have logistical problems from the beginning, not even considering whether it would work in theory.

As I said before, that is what we have now. The United States does not have pure capitalism. We have minimum wage, employee rights, restrictions on businesses, etc. What is guaranteed by the government differs from country to country. There's no need to get rid of the system.

This I agree with completely. Now, what "essential to life" means is a little tricky (is a "living wage" essential to life? education?), but food, shelter...the fact that not everyone has these is wrong.
It doesn't follow that we should then go ahead and use socialism to provide these, given that the system has an atrocious record in actually succeeding what it sets out to do. If these essentials are the most important thing to always have enough around, we should be encouraging the system that is least likely to fall victim to shortages.

If you think it's a good use of your money, by all means subsidise the poor so they can have access to the market, but letting anything other than voluntary decisions by profit-seeking producers handle the supply is kinda stupid.

You do realise that your point against the Soviet system is real and objective, while your point about capitalism is your own value judgement, right?

Technically, both points were value judgements.

It doesn't follow that we should then go ahead and use socialism to provide these, given that the system has an atrocious record in actually succeeding what it sets out to do. If these essentials are the most important thing to always have enough around, we should be encouraging the system that is least likely to fall victim to shortages.

If you think it's a good use of your money, by all means subsidise the poor so they can have access to the market, but letting anything other than voluntary decisions by profit-seeking producers handle the supply is kinda stupid.

Socialism--government regulation of the economy--I have no problem with. That's what Europe has, and what the U.S. has to a lesser extent. Pure laissez-faire capitalism sucks too. The problem with the OP's proposal is that it is communism, except that if you meet your quota, you can keep working for your own benefit. Yippee.

It doesn't follow that we should then go ahead and use socialism to provide these, given that the system has an atrocious record in actually succeeding what it sets out to do. If these essentials are the most important thing to always have enough around, we should be encouraging the system that is least likely to fall victim to shortages.
But the argument that capitalism is least likely to fall victim to shortages is, at least in the United States, mostly irrelevant. Affluence is the norm, not scarcity. (I stole that phrase, I can't remember from where.) The people who are starving in the United States are anomalies, and a government program is the most straightforward way to smooth out these anomalies.

If you think it's a good use of your money, by all means subsidise the poor so they can have access to the market, but letting anything other than voluntary decisions by profit-seeking producers handle the supply is kinda stupid.
If I were a profit-seeking producer, why would I subsidize the poor? That would be a very foolish way to maximize profits.

Technically, both points were value judgements.
You know what I mean. "Oppressive" and "stagnant" are universally bad things, the only thing we can disagree upon is the degree to which these apply to the Soviet system. Apathy towards human suffering and development through profit aren't universally bad things. The former is a particularly nasty way to phrase something that isn't, the latter...well, I don't see how anyone could see that as a bad thing, even phrased the way it was.

Socialism--government regulation of the economy--I have no problem with. That's what Europe has, and what the U.S. has to a lesser extent.
Oh, don't make this into a discussion of the definition of socialism. The point is that whenever the government is not simply regulating, but actually directly planning and controlling how much of something is produced, what is used in the process and where it ends up, there are problems. Even assuming a government has technically capable people, a business has a clear bottom line to value actions and events against. A government has committees and elections, none of which need have any relation to physical or economic realities.

The goal of a government that wants everyone to have access to cheap housing, food, healthcare and education should be to design a system of incentives and regulations that promotes a competitive market in which firms can make a profit from providing these things at as low a price as possible. And if there end up being people who still can't participate in that market because they're just that poor, it can think about directly subsidising these people - though I'd prefer it didn't do it by handing them taxpayer funds.

Pure laissez-faire capitalism sucks too.
I don't think it does, but that's beside the point.

But the argument that capitalism is least likely to fall victim to shortages is, at least in the United States, mostly irrelevant. Affluence is the norm, not scarcity. (I stole that phrase, I can't remember from where.) The people who are starving in the United States are anomalies, and a government program is the most straightforward way to smooth out these anomalies.
But why is it that there aren't many shortages in the States? There is an actual reason, and that reason is that capitalism is the rule there. Zimbabwe used to have plenty of food too, it was exporting loads of it. Few people would have thought it was possible that Zimbabweans needed food aid. But the government took charge of food production and distribution, and that is exactly what happened.

Even in the States, the petrol price controls of old come to mind. Or rent-controlled apartments in NYC. There is something about the way governments work that makes them produce shortages. It's either complete ignorance of the economic facts involved, or the need for officials to put more emphasis on other criteria to the extent that they have no choice but to ignore economic sustainability in favour of more short-term concerns of equity or even something mundane as looking good in the next election. Take your pick.

So on one hand we have a system that whenever there isn't enough of something automatically attracts more production of that thing and that is very decentralised and thus quite robust against outside shocks. On the other we have a system that has much better PR, but an atrocious record of performance. Why would you want the government to provide essentials, when essentials are the things for which we can least afford interruptions of supply?

If I were a profit-seeking producer, why would I subsidize the poor? That would be a very foolish way to maximize profits.
That depends, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying that if you were a caring, socially-minded government, you'd be much better off making sure there is a thriving, capitalist and fairly deregulated (hence flexible and innovative) market in the things you want everyone to have access to, and then giving subsidies (education vouchers, food vouchers, etc) to those too poor to participate in this market as buyers.

It's really a shame that people didn't pay more attention to Abdju's excellent thread on managing the issue of food access in developing countries right now (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=571011)*. But perhaps the idea of actually trying to suggest real-world solutions is foreign to both sides of the aisle.

*Yes, that is an encouragement to bump it with some intelligent comment

I rather like the kibbutz and moshav system in Israel. Basically, the businesses are socialistic, with every employee being an owner-operator of the business and all share the profits equally. But the kibbutzim and moshavim compete with each other on a capitalistic basis.

Mos Def has an amusing video on what he'd do as president, I'll go look it up but one thing he says that I agree with, in principle as opposed to his actual numbers is...

You can lower your taxes through social services. If you don't want to contribute in hours, then you pay more taxes.

Different social services would offset different amounts depending on the value and I'd make this for the more mundane jobs than the highly specialised jobs.

Ultimately, I'm more for initiating cultural change so that people are more socially responsible, if that requires monetary incentives, then so be it.

Here's the video just for amusement - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=udwTkU1QKPc