Wealth is an abstract concept.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that things like swimming pools, mansions, beach front property, houses, cars, and dollar bills in a wallet are all pretty concrete and tangible.
If there are no cops and lawyers and judges and property deeds well anyone can enter your beach front property and swim in your pool as long as you are not sitting there with a gun guarding it. And if you are sitting there someone else can use your ski property .
In nature noone owns anything.
1. Why should we value "the way that nature does it"? Nature also doesn't do science.
2. You're wrong anyway: animals routinely fight over control of territory, mates, and food.
Animals can hold onto only one territory not many differnt territories spread across the world. So yeah you get to hold to one house (as long as you work from home and never leave the house)
Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth.
It's society which gives rise to law which safeguards property and money and wealth. You can still have stuff in the absence of a government or a society.
Not much. Even Somalia has money and Society. If we truly have a non ownership society where machines provide whatever you need very few people will sign up to be your private security guards and of course such a society has no police to enforce civil crimes against property. Police will only care about murder or assault. Not that a squatter is sitting in your multi million mansion and swimming in your pool
if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way.
Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.
Agree. Noone owes the rich to continue living in a society where money has meaning
Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system.
Careful, your jealousy and greed are showing. I would hate for you to lose your self-righteous moral high ground.
There is no jealousy. I may be one of the few who would end up owning machines which produce the wealth. Doesnt mean I want to live my entire life in gated communities fending off the murderous poor
A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries.
1. I, for one, am going to need more than an "attaboy" for showing up to a day job no matter how lax the rules are.
People have a pyramid of needs. Once basic needs are met people mostly do work for attaboys. You might be the type who sit at home playing video games and watching porn till you die. The proposed society has a place for people like you
2. You know that Star Trek isn't real, right? If you want some kind of a system such as that depicted then you need to prove that such a system is possible in the first place. You go do the science and the economics and then get back to us with the results. In the mean time I won't vote for your cockamamie schemes being forced down our throats.
Its an example and a concept. Neither does Adam Smith's invisible hand. Its a concept.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite in this country: the lazy and indolent are having children by the dozens while the intelligent and productive members of society (middle class and higher) are having fewer and fewer children.
With free videogames and unlimited porn people without the drive to work are definitely not going to go out and find partners. They will watch porn till they die of old age.