Comment: Why?

(See in situ)


Why?

Why would you infer that you would be forced to crowd-share your boat? In reality, you could choose to or not to, but the choice would be on a different set of givens than you have today. For example, say you lived 'near' only one lake and say there was already 2-3 extra boats left unused by crowd-sharing almost any time you wanted to go to the lake and say those were equal or better than the boat you were considering. Would you still choose to work extra to buy your own if you could almost always just head to the lake sans boat? It wouldn't make much sense but it would still be your prerogative.

However, if you had grown up in this world (as the next generations might), you might be more prone to making the sharing choice because you hadn't grown up in a world of boat scarcity.

Extend this to every decision and you can begin to see what genuine abundance would look like. No central authority making your decisions and no community taking democratic votes. Just individuals making personal choices. If you remember what led to this, it was that prosperity grew so well that money became so easy to come by so that becomes the social norm.

As far as being resource limited, I have two comments. First is that having less boats in the world would seem to the people as though we had more. Each boat would be used much more and sit around rotting on a trailer much less. What's the utilization of a privately owned boat anyway? I'm guessing it's about one-hundredth of one percent. That doesn't make one bit of sense from a resource or individual perspective and it's certainly not good for the boat. BTW, cars are only 1-3% utilized too. Gotta be a better way.

The second point is not so fun on resources. It's a sort of a tragedy of the commons, technocratic answer. I'll first ask you a question. If some resource was truly going extinct, say black rhino tusks, is it ok for one person to be allowed to waste it? Even if they pay extreme amounts for it or if it was free, is it something that should happen or not? If you say yes, then you're not playing well with others and by ending their rights to see such an animal, you're actually harming them and should be sued (ala the libertarian solution for harm).

If you say that resource should be preserved, then how does a non-authority entity stop that person? There are only two ways. You suggest that it would have to be by authoritarian power but there is another way. If it became public info number one that Joe Blow was about to kill that rhino and his reason was just that he wanted another head on his wall, I'd hate to be him!

This may sound extreme but picture the situation scaled down to a single family. If son #2 wants to turn the back yard into a bike track but all others want it for volleyball, how would they handle it? No bikes, right?

Now, let's take it to a critical issue. When (NOT IF) helium becomes critically short in supply, how will it be handled today? Without considering the fairness aspect, it will first be rationed away from balloons for parties. At that point, the problem will be gone and the critical medical and industrial needs will continue using it. (Balloons waste most of it and it's rapidly going away and not replenishable.) How is this any different from simple peer pressure waging an info campaign advocating non-helium balloons? The only way is who benefits. The former makes helium producers rich at the expense of medical and industrial customers, even as he tries to expand distribution, while the latter has no financial (prosperity) losers.

If you want to take the last leap and talk boats... they're made of some plastic, rubber, metals, oil and glass. If done efficiently, we have the resources for a few thousand years' worth of boats.