Lex Luthor wrote:
Vladimirr wrote:
Fair enough.
Where does the energy come from? Another segment of the population who is doing work to build and maintain energy production and distribution systems?
How about real estate? How is it acquired, if there is no exchange of resources? Would it be a king-of-the-hill system where you stake your claim and then defend it against any challengers?
We have existing real-estate, and maintenance is not very labor intensive. The energy comes from the 5-10% I mentioned. I don't know about the last question.
You are assuming the population has some resource (X) to exchange in order for goods and services. Also assuming we're talking about reality, any (X) is a limited resource. It doesn't matter if (X) is food, energy, cash, the concept is the same. People have to have a way to aqcuire (X), they spend time to do it, and that's called work.
Back to real estate - existing real estate is owned by individuals. That real estate was aqcuired by resources, produced through work. Do you propose that the owners of the real estate make a deal with the businesses doing the production, to swap real estate for energy and supplies? To put it more simply, even if you managed to trade someone your house and land in exchange for a lifetime supply of food and never had to work again, where would you live? Even if you successfully made this agreement on an individual basis, how would this scale up to the point where 90% of the population made this agreement?