Return to Answer

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult. And there is a term Hayek coins, the knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of time and place as being important to commerce, i.e. the knowledge of opportunities, that seems to be disregarded (or held in low regard) by people who think (falsely) that science and/or technology has discovered all the general knowledge and principles necessary to run society.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this > requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to > many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult. And there is a term Hayek coins, the knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of time and place as being important to commerce, i.e. the knowledge of opportunities, that seems to be disregarded (or held in low regard) by people who think (falsely) that science and/or technology has discovered all the general knowledge and principles necessary to run society.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish.

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult. And there is a term Hayek coins, the knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of time and place as being important to commerce, i.e. the knowledge of opportunities, that seems to be disregarded (or held in low regard) by people who think (falsely) that science and/or technology has discovered all the knowledge necessary to run society.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this > requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to > many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult. And there is a term Hayek coins, the knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of time and place as being important to commerce, i.e. the knowledge of opportunities, that seems to be disregarded (or held in low regard) by people who think (falsely) that science and/or technology has discovered all the general knowledge and principles necessary to run society.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this > requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to > many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this > requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to > many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.

As to whether there would be corruption, or whether such a utopia could function within the principles espoused in the original post (i.e. supply goods to those that need them without black markets, secret deals, goods disappearing in transport, or other "unapproved" exchange) ... this is a duplicate, but not from Stack Exchange.

Friedrich Hayek answered it in 1945, in The Use of Knowledge in Society. The original article may be a bit dry without an econ background.

Hayek was trying to explain why central planning fails in comparison to free market exchange. He considers the problem of planning the production and consumption patterns of a society, from both a computational and informational perspective, and decides that it is the informational aspects that makes central planning implausible. He argues it is impossible for the preferences and capabilities of all of a society's citizens to be communicated to a single agent without considering whether such an agent could then calculate the most beneficial production/consumption plan for the society.

In contrast, prices generated through free market exchange communicate information and encourage voluntary compliance among participants, solving some of the problems that become intractable when attempting to concentrate all that information in the hands of a central planner. For example, an increasing price of something, say steel, will encourage producers to make more steel, and consumers to use less steel, or try to substitute something for the steel, like perhaps aluminum or bamboo. The price communicates this, and voluntary compliance ensues, because people have money and must function within a budget constraint. Take out money or allow anyone to order anything, and the pricing system can't function.

Now some people will say that Hayek could not have known in 1945 of all the infotech that would become available. But the trend of the information explosion has resulted in too much information and difficulties in analyzing all of it, and also new knowledge about what creates hard problems (e.g. NP-completeness, lack of incentive compatablity). Instead of making it easier for a single agency to assemble and analyze the information on what everyone could produce and what everyone needs, it seems more difficult. And there is a term Hayek coins, the knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of time and place as being important to commerce, i.e. the knowledge of opportunities, that seems to be disregarded (or held in low regard) by people who think (falsely) that science and/or technology has discovered all the knowledge necessary to run society.

The free market is a lot less restrictive and enhancing of freedom, culture, arts, as well as science, engineering and production than central planners and those favoring dictatorship. Looking at the nature of the arts in this utpoian society: it seems relegated to free time and hobbies:

A citizen's only requirement would be to hold a full time job. If they meet this > requirement, they are able to spend any free time pursuing whatever they wish, and the government will make sure citizens can do so. This would likely lead to > many citizens taking up a hobby or art, such as painting, music, wood or metal working, or anything else they wish

Nothing here says that painting, etc., can not be someone's full time job... but it surely suggests that these things are secondary to "real jobs." Yet, the most successful artists in modern market-based society are able to work at their art full time so long as their patrons and customers are willing to buy their art and are often more successful than people doing "real jobs", like collecting garbage or welding on skyscrapers.

Also, I have to agree with others that the proposed utopia sounds dystopian in other ways. Hoarding, obesity, sexual promiscuity or non-conformity are sometimes considered symptoms or causes of something unhealthy but are not crimes in most modern societies.