It is not
@electrowizard you dont need to quibble over the tragedy of commons. the shared resource is slacking off. if one person slacks off it barely matters. when everyone slacks off it matters a lot. when there is little individual incentive to not slack, the nash equilibrium is for everyone to slack.
how do you punish slackers in a communist society?
when someone has a new idea for an amazing new tool to increase productivity in a communist society, how do you decide whether and how to allocate resources to its research? how do you reward that person for his amazing idea?
There is absolutely not an equivalence here: your arguments about automation prove this. There is no scarcity in labor: the tragedy of the commons is about scarce resources. You're so dumb it hurts
suppose there is someone born who has a neurological disorder that causes him to refuse to work in favor of playing videogames all day. do you still give him food? how much? the same amount as people who work?
Lol, no it isn't. Do you understand what Nash equilibrium is? Explain it to me, because you clearly have a misconception. Which makes sense, because you don't have the mathematical background to understand game theory.
"From each according to their ability; to each according to their need"
No one gets more for something. The incentive is cooperation so your society is healthy. This is a natural tendency, as clearly shown in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Human Evolution
In order for ubi to be successful the United States would need to be almost entirely self sufficient
Is the above statement true or false @electrowizard
Mostly false. But UBI doesn't solve the issues of capitalism
suppose you are on the job and you can work hard, or not work hard. if you work hard, you produce 1 unit of value (normalized). if you slack off, you produce 0 units of value (normalized). there are 100 people in the system, so you gain 1/100 of the total produced value as utility. suppose that slacking off further gains you +0.1 utility. in nash equilibrium everybody must slack off. because no matter how hard other people are working, your working hard nets you 0.01 units of utility, while slacking off nets you 0.1 units.
yeah if you just cross your fingers and hope that human beings will cooperate so your society is healthy the entire system will not be more productive than when people are working for paychecks.
who does the worst, most dangerous, difficult, terrible, disgusting jobs? the people who volunteer to? the people best equipped to? wont they just pretend to have a neurological disorder that prevents them from doing that?
Not an example: an explanation of what you think it is. I'll explain why this example is wrong once you let me correct your understanding
Empirical studies prove otherwise. Check out Mutual Aid
If we can't live without dishwashers, how would we live without cops?
And so you're asking me, who does the dishes after the revolution?
Well, I do my own dishes now, I'll do our own dishes then
You know it's always the ones who don't who ask that fucking question
what? there is an office job and a manual labor job. they are honestly of similar difficulty. the office job is more appealing in every way.
who gets which?
ewiz do you think greenhouse gas emission can be characterized as a tragedy of commons problem, where the shared resource is "lack of global warming" and the nash equilibrium is to consume as much of the lack of global warming as you can because the marginal difference you make is very slim?
Fuck office jobs
Do I want to sit inside all day and ruin my body or do I want do work outside all day and ruin my body?
Outside is the correct answer