The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Abolishing and Eliminating Currency is a viable proposal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,791 times Debate No: 35845
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




I submit that abolishing all forms of currency and banking can be accomplished.

By implementing this system, we will create a paradigm shift that will positively impact humanity - as we can correct all of the following issues we currently face:

Financial crisis
Centralized Power
Environmental Violations
Lack of Health Care
Drug Dealing (Illegal and otherwise)
Renewable Energy

The following are some of the added benefits that can be realized by implementing this system:

Better Nutrition
Placing Environmental Concerns at the forefront of decisions
Unlimited Education
Better Medicines
Best in class products
A smaller Government
Achieve global oneness
A realization of true freedom
Elimination of cost prohibitive obstacles
Unlimited Research and Development resources

The way to do all this is to pass a bill to modify our social security system by extending its benefits and at the same time to allow the social security administration to delegate responsibility of administration and enforcement to individual States. This can be done by voting a bill into law.

What"s in the Bill is what changes everything. The focus of the Bill will be to change the way we base our Social Security contributions on. Currency will be replaced by hours. Hours (or time) will be the new standard of satisfying our social security share of duty. But, it does not stop there. Currency will altogether be eliminated. Time will be the new standard of paying our duty to society. Time will replace currencies.

The concept is simple 1 hour of work equals 1 hour of work, period. Banking of time in any form will be forbidden as well as swapping, trading or dealing of time. Subscribers will need to satisfy the hours in order to receive full benefits. Those hours can be satisfied by working, studying, raising a child, community or military service and farming. Subscribers to the New Social Security will in turn receive everything they need including but not limited to food, clothing, residence, fuel, education, health care, personal goods, housewares, transportation, leisure travel. As an incentive for entrepreneurs to become successful they will additionally receive an allowance to hire a personal assistant.

The requirement to work will be as follows: six hours per day for 4 days in a week or 24 hours in a week. 6 hours of education per week. Civic service can be substituted for up to 6 hours of work per week. There will be an allowance of eight weeks of vacation per year. Subscribers that violate this plan who have received the benefits without contributing their hours shall be forced to restitute their hours by performing the undesirable work.

This plan will also have the flexibility to allow for anyone choosing to opt out. An example would be someone who prefers to live as an isolationist and support him/herself.

The structure of our current currency policy exists in a Ying Yang. If the Government can create rights that encompass an economic value for one side, than it must take that equal value from the other side to pay for it. Even worse, this causes one or both sides rights to no longer be preserved.
Our current monetary policy cannot sustain viability without undermining citizens" rights!

Time " The ultimate resource

There is no need to expound on this point too much. We all know that time is more valuable than any commodity. Nothing and no one can buy more time. We are all equal before a sunrise.

To make the transition from a currency system to a hour system we can rely on an existing system currently in use to track hours worked. Currently, during your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings. Using time as a measure of one"s earnings over currency can be an easy transition. Hours are already being recorded by employers. Who then report those hours to the Social Security Administration (The SSA). The SSA currently measures the amount of time in credits to determine eligibility for social security. Therefore, little needs to change to effect implementation of a record keeping program for validating hours accomplished. There will have to be some changes within the SSA to account for a frequent reporting system to a (newly proposed) Fairness Review Board. We may also need to alter the unit of measure as needed for frequently identifying compliance with work hours. But there is no need for me to get into that much detail here at the moment.


Besides the fact that abolishing all forms of currency and banking is not a VIABLE (as the resolution states) solution because it will never be supported by enough people to get passed, I'll debate the actual merits of this idea because it seems that is what the instigator intends. I'd rather not get caught up in a semantics debate on what viable means and if this is indeed viable. I'd rather focus on whether this idea will be beneficial or harmful.

With that being said, I'll begin with some refutation.

There is an interesting statement that my opponent makes very early on. He says that this will "create a paradigm shift..." I tend to feel that not only will this actually be a paradigm shift, but it won't bring about the change in how we pass laws and view the world at all. For one, people won't just think "I guess I'll stop being greedy and wanting as much as I possibly can for myself now that there is no currency." My opponent fails to take into account human nature in his account of things, and this will be the reason he will end up being proven wrong on this issue.

Plus, the actual implementation of the bill, will lead to everyone dying right away. And I don't mean this in the policy sense of "no matter what happens everyone dies because of nuclear war." I mean that all he's doing is modifying SS. I'm 25 years old and not receiving SS benefits. The reason for this is because SS is designed to give out what you've put into it at a later time. You theoretically receive 20 years of benefits (from the time you retire at 65 till the time you die at 85, because 20 is an easy number to do math with) for the 40+ years of work you did. It's not a 1-1 ratio because it's impossible to do that. I'll address your actual ideas of getting rid of currency and why they're flawed, but your implementation is seriously lacking. You're asking that Social Security be active at all times in people's lives, and it just can't work like that. The very IDEA of SS is a bank. I deposit the money I make today and receive it back later when I need it. So you implement a policy of a bank to get rid of banking.

Now let's discuss the hours he talks about and the work he talks about. You're clearly not a parent. Neither am I, but I know for a fact that you don't spend only 24 hours raising a child every week. So now, I can opt out of the work I do normally in order to raise a child. This means that EVERY SINGLE PARENT ALIVE is now receiving your benefits just for staying at home with their child. We will see a sharp increase in stay at home parents. In fact, both parents are now going to stay at home. This is simple economics. In a free market where goods are exchanged for services provided people try to trade based on what is beneficial for them. In a non-coerced trade, both parties are to have won. This means that I give what I think is less for something I believe to be worth more. The other person I trade with thinks the same thing. So both parties are winning. Now when we translate this idea to your proposal, we have one side giving the same thing no matter what the other party (parents) give. So I can choose to work or I can choose to stay at home with my family. In my opinion, and many other people's as well, the staying at home option allows me to earn more for my trade of services for goods. So now you have people leaving the production side of this goods and services trade en masse. That will cause a steep decline in the amount of goods produced for consumption. You have no way of stopping this from happening. You must give incentives for people to produce and consume rather than just consume.

Now let's talk about your misconceived notions of government. Government is not a yin yang sort of agreement. The government doesn't take rights in order to give them lol. If so, who is currently losing their right to life in order that I have mine? Who's losing their right to a name so that I can have mine? This is absurdity at its finest. Have you studied the way government works? Our current monetary policy doesn't undermine citizen's rights, but rather gives them a medium at which to value both goods and services. This is inherently key to having a stable and sustainable way of life.

Now let's get into my own argumentation.

Firstly, this is really appealing to those who are on the lower sections of the economic scale. This isn't at all appealing for the CEO of any major company. Which means that those people who are the one's providing jobs in the first place...aren't going to do this.

This leads to one of two things. The first is that the employees of such companies leave in order to start providing basic goods that the government can make (food, shelter, clothing, etc...). This will lead to a way of life that is viable, but not rewarding. Look to Maslow's hierarchy here. We'll have our basic needs covered, but not the upper tiers that we want. So yes, we'll be able to survive, but we won't be happy. That doesn't sound like a place I want to live. The second thing that could happen is that all companies are abolished and reformed under this new SS. While COMPLETELY impossible, it's also not going to happen. The basic needs need to be covered first, and after those needs are met, the other wants can grow. Countries that are financially stable are able to provide luxury goods to their citizens, but countries that aren't financially stable are focusing on providing the basics first.

The reason we won't be financially stable anymore, is that the government is only providing basic necessities. Is the government going to be sending me a Galaxy S 4 and my Xbox and gaming computer that I want as well? If so, who is saying what is given to each citizen? Do I get whatever I want from the government? Or do I have to put in more hours? The government is going to be giving to everyone the same thing. And it's the ability to survive and keep working and producing. But people don't want to just survive. People want to thrive. People want to have the latest and greatest and most fun toys. My life is worth living not because I have life, but because of the things I can do that aren't survival. You're losing that aspect of things.

You're eliminating competition from the market. If the government is going to be giving us all phones, then they're going to give us the same kind of phone which eliminates the need for production of other phones. This eliminates jobs. But the same thing happens in every other sector of the market. So now we have one phone company, one gaming company, one food production company, one of everything. And monopolies are not good things. When a monopoly forms, the quality of the product declines. There is no need to create newer and better things, because they don't need to "beat" anyone else in order to make money. So now we stop seeing any sort of new technologies. We're stuck in 2013 AND I STILL DON'T HAVE A LIGHTSABER!!!!!! I'm not ok with that. Freer competition increases the amount of technologies, medicines, and the things that make life better that are produced. You're creating the world Aldous Huxley already proved was bad.

This is a cool idea if basic economics didn't exist, if human nature was one of appeasement from the basics of life, if we weren't already so wealthy in the first place. But none of those "if's" are true. Basic economics does exist and they say that life will stop progressing. Human nature is one of greed. We all want our life to get better. We don't want to just survive anymore. We're incredibly wealthy already. This is proven by the sheer number of luxury goods consumed in our nation. Life isn't just eating, sleeping, and procreating. It's so much more than that. And I'm thankful it is.
Debate Round No. 1


will post in another round sorry


My opponent had some technical difficulties, so please don't hold this lack of post against him. I am forfeiting this round of argumentation so that a good debate can be had.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Supercooper for being the contender on this debate and for allowing me to continue onto this round after experiencing difficulty. This is my first ever debate, so again thank you for the patience. Here are my responses:

Supercooper stated: "Besides the fact that abolishing all forms of currency and banking is not a VIABLE (as the resolution states) solution because it will never be supported by enough people to get passed,"

*Response: This is a false fact. Your opinion is noted. We cannot predict the support this will receive, but I will continue to dream.

Supercooper stated: "...but it won't bring about the change in how we pass laws and view the world at all." AND "My opponent fails to take into account human nature in his account of things, and this will be the reason he will end up being proven wrong on this issue."

*Response: I am not trying to change how we pass laws. AND You are correct about human nature. It does take event(s) to cause a paradigm shift in our morality and virtues. For some it could be a simple event for others who knows? But I do believe that understanding and seeing this new way will enlighten a person, and that will be the beginning to shifting towards a more rewarding life than the one that we experience now of selfishness toward material desires.

Supercooper stated: "You're asking that Social Security be active at all times in people's lives, and it just can't work like that. The very IDEA of SS is a bank."

*Response: It is already active in people"s lives. I suggest that it be expanded to provide benefits in a shorter time than waiting until you are 65 or disabled. You are right, if we were talking about issuing benefits in the current system that depends on currency. But we are talking about eliminating currency therefore it will work without the limitations that comes with having a currency. Social Security is the agency of the GOV that is performing the role of collecting the time worked and converting it into a credit. It is not a bank. You are not depositing anything. It is only record keeping of hours to determine the amount of credits you have. You cannot use those credits for trading anything. It would be nice if SS was a bank but it is not. Currently it resembles a Ponzi scheme. Using the SSA allows the same type of record keeping and reporting we have all been used to. No banking is intended only a reporting of hours contributed. In order for this to work two things must occur: 1) Abolish Currency. 2) Abolish Banking.

Supercooper stated: "...but I know for a fact that you don't spend only 24 hours raising a child every week"

*Response: This is an error on my part, let me clarify it here. The intent here is that earning credits can be accomplished by a parent raising a child. While raising a child is a full time effort, the credits should only equal the amount of time or hours the parent could have earned during another contribution such as work or civil service. I would suggest that only one parent would be necessary to stay home full time raising a child. Yes, I believe that a single parent should raise his/her own child and receive contribution credit for it. This is not set in stone and nor is it intended to be inflexible. This is something that a Fairness Review Board (see below) should evaluate in every State and possibly in every circumstance. I do not think the Federal GOV should be involved setting an across the board ruling on this. There are too many factors to make a determination on how to formulate a plan here when I am just trying to get the basic idea across. For example, at what child's age should a parent of a special needs child be allowed to be home with their child? Or, If a parent chooses to home school their child, than until what child's age does that parent get contribution credit?

Yes, parenting is at times more rewarding than work ( I can say "at times" because I am a father of 3), but view it in this point " an hour of your time is equal to an hour of someone else"s time so long as all contribute to society. A rocket scientist"s time is equal to that of a ditch digger. This is because the rocket scientist spent a decade studying while the ditch digger accepted his occupation as the means to fulfill his contribution. Either way, I feel it is a fair contribution. A Fairness Review Board (FRB) will be established that will encompass a committee of elected leaders along that will include but not limited to attorney(s), accountants, business manager(s) and a representative of local security force. The board will abide by an established global standard. The FRB will be located at all localities and will be tasked with the following duties:
1.Will serve to review applications from entrepreneurs who wish to manage either an existing business or establish a new business.
2.To ensure that artists and entertainers have sufficient followers to remain within their craft. This is not to say that insufficient followers would be cause from removing them from their craft, but that part time employment would be necessary.
3.To enforce that all participants are completing their required time.
4.To verify that the time participants report are accurate.
5.To audit employers or education facilities or anyone else that report hours to SSA.
6.To confirm and/or determine the human resource requirements of a business.

Supercooper stated: "The government doesn't take rights in order to give them..."

Response: I do not mean a life for a life. What I am talking about is the laws that are passed via lobbying activities wherein one group benefits and another losses their rights be it in any form but usually a financial loss. A government law that passes to further tighten a grip or ease on any inspections, emissions, reporting, etc almost always impacts one party and hurts another. For example:
1) A lifelong farmer (rights taken) no longer allowed to grow his crops because Monsanto (rights given) patented a certain soybean which ended up somehow migrating into his fields.
2) Passing a federal law to mandate business (rights taken) provide health coverage to employees (rights given). 3) A law passes to allow the use of less costly production of food benefits the company producing it (rights given) by providing it with higher profits while its effects of cheaper production usually have a harmful effect on the consumers(rights taken).

Supercooper stated: "Our current monetary policy doesn't undermine citizen's rights, but rather gives them a medium at which to value both goods and services."

*Response: Our current monetary policy is dependent on spending. This causes a society that is geared toward consumption. This consumptive ideal is what places pressure on aspects of our lives to spend. Therefore, the underlying factor of the choices we make are due to these influences we experience throughout our life. Our freewill is hijacked by having a currency system. It is a major underlying factor undermining hence manipulating our moral judgment. I do not want the GOV involved in providing value for goods or services. I want the option to provide my own medium on how to earn my contribution. I do not want to keep the GOV in control doing that. GOV providing a medium seems contradictory in a free market society. What I suggest is more a natural law.

----------I am out of room to respond to your argumentation section. I can post the argumentation responses in the comments section or wait until you respond to this, I am not sure what the protocol is so if you have any suggestions let me know.


I'll just jump right in I suppose...

My opponent states that SS is already active in people's lives and that it should be expanded to providing benefits earlier. But he fails to address the real heart of my argument here. It's not as simple as "you get out what you put in right away" which is how he perceives it. Instead, it's "I put in a little over a long period of time so I can take out a lot over a small period of time." The reason it MUST be this way is because we require a lot of consumption. And by require I include want. And I'm not sure my opponent understands SS very well at all. SS is a bank. I put in a percentage of my paycheck every time towards SS. It doesn't record how many hours I work, but rather how much I made. If I make a lot of money, more money is put into my SS. Then, when I retire, I have that money saved up in SS checks. Sorry to say this, but that's a bank...only without the interest.

You can't say that the USFG shouldn't be involved in setting an across the board ruling when you're asking them to do just that. The USFG would be required to set an across the board ruling in EVERY INSTANCE because they're the ones giving the people what they require to survive. So they will absolutely have to be involved...they'll be the only one's involved.

Now let's address the point that really loses you the argument. "A rocket scientist's time is equal to that of a ditch digger." Wrong. In fact, the very reason it isn't equal, is because of the amount of specialization it takes to SEND SOMEONE TO THE MOON!!! A ditch digger has absolutely no idea where to start, where the rocket scientist can still dig a ditch. Specialization is what drives economies. You're asking people to put in a lot of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of suffering to get what someone who answers phone calls get. This cannot be the case. This is where the real argument lies in this debate. This is where you should be focusing your response.

Someone risked everything to create Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Samsung, McDonald's, etc...without the risk vs. reward factor, you have people stop taking risks. This plan removes the reward from entrepreneurship. You lose small business owners because they get the same thing everyone else gets while working considerably harder for it. You lose CEO's because they like being rich and you're giving them some bread and cheese for dinner when they want prime rib. You're losing the entire upper class of people, which means most middle class people don't have places to work. So now, it's up to the government to create jobs. And the way they do this, is by opening factories, running farms, etc...The problem with this, is that they're now the cheapest in the industry, and all other business in those markets are now beaten by the unstoppable force of the government. Because the government isn't selling their goods, they're giving them away. You can't compete with free. So VERY SOON after this idea comes into play, the government is the only producer of goods.

The reason this is bad, is because then people stop investing into R&D. The government doesn't need to make their products better because nobody is competing against them. They're 100% of the market. So new drugs don't get created and diseases don't get cured. New video games aren't created and I'm stuck at home bored. New science isn't discovered and we're still less than 50% on making it to the moon. This is a severe problem. People don't want mediocrity. And even less than that they don't want less that. You're creating A Brave New World without the caste system, and that's worse than Huxley's vision. At least in Huxley's book we were happy with our class. Now we've all become the same class. A very boring, dreary, and lower class.

Lastly, the consumptive ideal isn't what places pressure on aspects of our lives to spend. There is no pressure on our lives to spend save what we want their to be. Those who don't want to spend, don't. Those who do want to spend, do. That's just simple truth. I'm given the right to decide what I want, and the market responds to that. It's not a market driven and consumer reactive system here. Quite the opposite. If the consumers don't want bananas...bananas won't be produced. It's reliant upon what the consumer wants. The companies that figure this out faster and better than others succeed. That's how it works. You're removing the consumer from the market and telling us there will still be suppliers. That's just illogical. There's absolutely no basis in reality for this idea to work.

Don't hold any of the arguments that he missed against him please. The real heart of the argument has been addressed by both sides. This shouldn't be judged on who had the most arguments and who responded to what. Make sure the ideas behind this debate are argued. There are a lot of people who agree with my opponent here, and ideas have consequences. This is a BAD, BAD, BAD, TERRIBLY BAD, idea. I'll take the negatives that come with consumerism over this idea any day of the year. Don't hear me saying that our current system is perfect, because it's not. But this is not the right way to go about fixing it. Just because pure greed is a bad thing doesn't mean that no greed is the way to fix it. There has to be a middle ground here.

If you're really interested in these ideas of market principles and how we as human beings can solve for poverty and hunger and other things that the very system produces, read Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom."
Debate Round No. 3


In retrospect, I should have posted my remaining responses to your first set of arguments in the comments section.

I believe we have reached somewhat of an agreement on what the core argument is to prove whether this plan can be viable, that is individual"s time contribution being equal (Logistics). So, I will focus on that. I will also respond to CON responses regarding Equal Credits for Equal hours and Risk vs. Reward (Popular Acceptance), R & D investing (Sustainability) and Morality.

I would like to state, again for clarity, that currently, during your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings. (I did have a typo on the second response that said it currently recorded hours, so thank you Supercooper for pointing that out). The proposed change is to record a person"s earnings in "hours" instead of "dollars".

*Logistics - The system is already in place and performing nearly the same reporting and recordkeeping. It would not be difficult to change the reporting and recordkeeping from dollars to hours. So the answer of viability as it relates to logistics is positive.

*Equal Credits for Equal Hours " Putting aside economics for a second, in order for a society to thrive we do need specialists. A person needs training for any field of specialty. Given a choice (I use the term loosely to include a person that may not have a true choice due to many circumstances) of an occupation, a person would choose one that he/she desires. One may choose to become a rocket scientist and receive a decade of training. That training is provided by a school, mentor, military, on the job etc. Those hours of training would be part of their earned hours and count towards their social security contributions. While that person is receiving their training others in society are contributing in other ways as I pointed in the debate intro. My point here is that some people may not want to go to school and may be content working as a ditch digger and coming home without a care in the world. A rocket scientist may not want to work as a ditch digger. So then who becomes the valuable one?

Will some people be content answering phones, of course. Will some people have a burning desire to chase their dreams, of course. I submit that those people will continue to pursue their choice of trade just as passionately as in our current system. The major difference is that in the time contribution system there will be more opportunity for them. Occupational choices will be more available as companies will expand their hiring to fulfill the empty positions, which were a result of lack of affordability.

*Risk vs. Reward " This time contribution system is an Entrepreneur"s dream! To have the opportunity to produce a best in class product/service without worrying about costs or making a profit can never be accomplished in our current system.

It will be more favorable to a free market than what we have now. A person can submit a business plan (similar to what SBA currently requires for financing) and if accepted they are a business owner. There can be transitional stages where the new businesses must meet certain milestones over a period of time in order to stay in business. Businesses will need subscribers or customers to stay in business. Consumers will have more power than they do now because they will no longer be limited by the cost of products/services. The power to be able to subscribe or acquire what they actually want versus what they can afford. The reward to the entrepreneur will be to have more subscribers by offering a better product/service. It may even be the demise of Walmart type retailers. I smile every time I imagine the variety of foods in mom and pop restaurants that will open up. The outlook of viability based on Popular Acceptance is positive.

*R & D Investing " The fastest road to a light saber is not one with a currency system but in a time contribution system. The time contribution system removes cost limitations on research so companies can produce your light saber faster.

Supercooper stated that "Freer competition increases the amount of technologies, medicines, and the things that make life better that are produced." This is exactly my point. Unlimited R & D, more competition, more safety, better protection of our environment, etc. Drugs companies can finally find cures to problems because they won"t need to worry about repeat sales. We can finally get everlasting light bulbs, tires etc. Companies will be forced by consumer demand to provide best in class products as opposed to cheap products. There will be more companies allowed in business and that will help stimulate innovation.
I want everyone to thrive as well, equally. When you eliminate the need to make a profit and only focus on making the best of class end products we all win. Companies will now focus on producing durable environmentally friendly based products. Products can be researched and developed without limitations of cost. Can you imagine the advances in technology, science and engineering? Why would we need a patent office anymore? Sustainability is positive.

*Morality - I'm not saying that consumerism is bad, I'm saying that the current economic system depends on it and therefore it would have a ripple effect of catastrophic consequences on our economic system when people reduce spending.

All persons seek well-being and perfection. This idea of a time contribution system lends itself to the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently issued their 2012 Annual Letter From Bill Gates.

Two mentions in his letter I thought worthy of pointing out that are relevant to what I am trying to convey here are:

"When Melinda and I started this work more than a decade ago, we were inspired by the conviction that "all lives have equal value."
"Because of that money, the poorest infants in the world will start receiving the same vaccines that infants in rich countries receive." - Bill Gates

My point here is that here is one of the richest couples on Earth and what do they covet? Benevolence!

Regardless of how much money anyone has they usually feel desire for more. Not only in terms of financial but in terms of culture and morality. Morality today is motivated by either need or fear. I hope this future system of living with less greed changes our view of morality towards one of love for people. I believe that benevolence can replace some of the greed we have grown up with.


Logistics is not important. Whether it can be done has nothing to do with whether it should be done.

I'd like to point out that in order for my opponent to win this debate, he must now prove that there will be specialists in his new economy. He grants that in order for an economy to thrive specialists are necessary. If he fails to do that, he deserves to lose. Now I must discuss why people won't desire specialty. This is probably going to take up all my space...if not you may see more arguments.

I'm going to be very clear in how economies work. In order to start a small business, I must invest my own money into it. Whether this be in the form of a loan to be repaid or money I've saved is irrelevant. That business then competes with others like it with the consumers that deem my service or goods necessary or desirable. Note, my business is responding to the consumer, not the other way around. There are many reasons why a consumer might choose my business over another. The first of which is cost. If I'm a lower price than my competition, I'll get more business. The second reason is quality. If my product is better than my competition's, I'll get more business. The third is location. If I'm closer and easier to access than my competition, I'll get more business. The final reason I will succeed over my competition is customer service. If I value my customers and treat them how they desire, then I'll get more business. Those are the four reasons why businesses succeed. There is a fifth, but it's luck, so...whatever.

Typically, in order for me to do any of those four things, I have to invest more money. If I want a cheaper product, I must produce more of them in order to keep up with costs. If I want a higher quality product then I must invest more money into production. If I want a better locale, then I must buy up a high traffic area, and those are expensive. If I want great customer service, then I must pay my employees at a level where they're happy to come to work, while keeping those same people around. That involves raises and high pay. All things require more money. So to start a successful business I need a lot of money. This is a very big risk. In order to determine whether I should even start a company in the first place, I need to know that the reward will be better than the risk I'm investing. Because even if I invest money into doing the things that will make my company better, the fifth element can come back and bite me, ruining everything.

Now let's discuss why your economy eliminates risk vs. reward. And I'm not just going to talk about the business owner. Firstly, I can start as many failing businesses as I want. I'm not required to focus on how cheap I make my product, or how high of quality, or how I treat people, or where I'm located. As long as I'm working, I'm getting the exact same thing as if I were succeeding. And there's a significant difference between working and succeeding. So as soon as my business fails, I just start another one, rinse and repeat. You're eliminating the reward factor by eliminating the risk factor. Failing doesn't hurt you anymore. You just start over again, because the government is the one giving you the resources to start the company in the first place. So there is no reward for succeeding, and there is no risk to make you want to succeed. Now let's talk about the specialists. People want to be rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, and other white collar workers because of the money and the prestige. But in this country, money buys you prestige. Nothing says prestigious like a lamborghini. Guys only use the "I'm a doctor...I save lives" line to get women. Secretly they love the money and the prestige. You're eliminating the reason they went to school in the first place. Yes, there will be some people who want to be a doctor for the noblest of reasons, but those people aren't populating our country to the extent you're hoping. So we're gonna get a lot of ditch diggers and a lot of people answering phone calls. And just to be blunt here...people don't want those jobs...period. They want the money that they can get, but they don't want those jobs. They'd rather be doing something where they're making more money and working a lot less. Because money drives the economy, well...the things you can buy drive the economy. You see, people won't have to worry about "costs or making a profit..." because those things don't exist. But I've just shown how they're essential to business. You absolutely cannot separate the two.

So why will this still not be the case anymore? Because people don't need to shop anywhere in your scenario. In your scenario, the government is GIVING everyone everything they need. Which means that there are no more luxury items being produced or bought. The government isn't going to give everyone a yacht, personal jet, private chef, and $6 million home. It's just not feasible. Like I said earlier, companies can't compete with free. So even if you somehow answer the risk vs. reward game (which isn't possible because my argument is based off of fact and not well-wishing), you're stuck with how there is going to be competition at all.

You say that businesses will need to reach certain milestones like having so many subscribers or customers, but they're not going to have any. Firstly, how are they going to buy these products? How are they going to subscribe to these things? They'd have to do it through the government. Because the government is the one in charge of exchanging their hours for goods. So the consumer says that they need product x, and the government goes and gets it for them in exchange for y hours. The government isn't going to compete with themselves. It doesn't make sense. So instead of the government going to some store or business...they're just going to make that good themselves. It eliminates the middle man. So now every good and service is run by the government. That's the elimination of competition I was talking about.

Now why is the elimination of competition bad? Because if there is no competition, the five things I started with don't matter. But instead of this just creating a bunch of failing businesses, it creates a monopoly that is a failing business. The only place to get goods, no longer needs to worry about how they treat people, everyone is going to go there regardless. That's not gonna be enjoyable. They don't need to worry about how hard it is to reach because you have to go there anyway. They don't care about how high of quality things are, nobody is there to make a better product. Even if they did, the government is going to use their own version, and cut out the middle man. They don't need to worry about cost. If they want to charge you 7 hours of work for a banana, they can do that. There are no cheaper bananas out there. And if someone starts to produce bananas for cheaper, they undercut it so drastically that the cheaper banana goes out of business. Then they raise prices again. And finally, they've eliminated the luck factor. They have 100% of the market share, so they have no way of failing.

Now I'll wrap up by thanking you for bringing up Bill and Melinda. Because you clearly don't understand what they were saying. He says that all lives have equal value, but this doesn't mean of means of opportunity. He says that all people should be able to succeed just as they were able to. This doesn't come about through your system, but rather the one in place. And finally, he says that because of the money they were able to give, which they earned a lot of through a market system, the infants will be able to receive that which others are able to. It's because he was REWARDED for his RISKS that this is possible. Your own example is a bad one for you. He's arguing for a free market system that produces benefits in everyone's lives. Because you get benevolence out of your wealth. Third world countries don't have anthropologists...
Debate Round No. 4


Let me clear up some confusion here, because I now understand that you misunderstood how this idea of eliminating currency was to work. My opening argument states both "Currency will altogether be eliminated. Time will be the new standard of paying our duty to society. Time will replace currencies." AND "Banking of time in any form will be forbidden as well as swapping, trading or dealing of time. Subscribers will need to satisfy the hours in order to receive full benefits." Apparently, this is ambiguous and I apologize for that. Nonetheless, I think both our arguments thus far cover what I intended so I think we should continue. I restate the basic working system of how I intended to replace currency as follows:

People work (or study, community service, etc) and have their hours posted to their Social Security record.

You earn credits for time worked. For illustration, let"s say 20 hours of work = 1 credit. There can be several levels of benefits for the credits accumulated such as:

Level 1 Benefit (2 credits) = Food
Level 2 Benefit (3 credits) = Clothing
Level 3 Benefit (5 credits) = healthcare
Level 4 Benefit (10 credits) = car
Level 5 Benefit (15 credits) = home
Level 6 benefit (20 credits) = 1 additional credit
Level 7 benefit (30 credits) = vacation

We can add that missing work would subtract 1 credit for every x hours missed. There can be many variables that can be tweaked to make it a fair system. Bean counters would have a field day working this out. This wouldn"t be nearly as complicated as our current system is now with how we handle compensation packages, taxes, entitlement programs, etc.. I agree with my opponent that the logistics aren"t important right now so I don"t need go into any further details on that.

Once you reach a level, you have the choice to procure the goods or services that come with that benefit at no additional cost to you. We as consumers are free to choose where we take our business. This is no different than our current system. Only now we prove this with a social security card that tells the business what level benefit we have reached. For example, you go to a restaurant show them your card, they swipe it to verify and provide you with the service and food. If you don"t like the food or service, you don"t return to that business. If no one returns, they go out of business. The owners may or may not be allowed to start a new business. That will be up to either the Small Business Administration or the Fairness Review Board or both. Conversely, business failure will be reduced because of proper preparation for success and the ability to hire business managers and mentors will have increased. Nonetheless, there is still a risk of failure and a reward of success, although not as devastating when a loss in our current system is experienced.

Regarding Benevolence " My point is we all created equal. A poor child should not have to depend on the benevolence of a single person or even a group of people to receive a vaccine that can help him. Abolishing currency will make sure this is possible. Also, there is more to life than any form of currency can ever provide. That is real thriving. Please view the Global Oneness Project as their ideas relate to this.

OK, so now onto your challenge of proving that there will be specialists in a time contribution system:

I would like all of you to consider this, if given a choice where all you had to do is work or school or community service or own a business, entertain etc. who of you would choose a non-rewarding job for the rest of your life? I think not many. Why, because not many people are content with being ordinary. Many people have a fire inside them to thrive for life. Some people come out of retirement to get back and play in the dirt because of boredom.

Some people, as you so stated, seek prestige and women, but when we eliminate currency that prestige and status will only come from becoming a specialist not an ordinary person. Again the tweaking of this system can be accomplished to add an incentive or additional credits to further entice specialized training and employment. An example may be for the top selling company(s) in every field to receive a more exclusive vacation for all employees in the company.

Some people are entrepreneurs and won"t settle for anything except perfection regardless of the financial rewards.

Some people are inventive and don"t care for money, prestige or status. By the way, a perfect example of this, as well as an example of how bad our currency system is to humanity, is that of Nikola Tesla. Most Americans have never even heard of him, but just Google him or read this link on how he invented wireless electricity that he was willing to give the world for free but his investors decided it wasn"t a profitable venture and destroyed the technology.

Decisions like those exist because a currency system exists. Eliminate currency and we will be on a path to a better life. Just because currency exists doesn"t mean it is right. It is wrong for many reasons. The benefits of a time contribution system far outweigh our current currency based system. The benefit of having just our drug companies find cures for ailments alone should be enough reason to abolish currency. They are not in business to find cures because they can"t make money in doing so. In a time contribution system, finding cures will be the highest priority. There will be no more drug dealers on the streets or pill mills.

Without banking we no longer have to worry about Wall Street"s manipulation of market prices on everything that affects what we consume or losing our savings.

This concept is viable. It has been proven that it can be accomplished and sustained, despite the fact that it will be a hard pill to swallow. This reminds me of a quote:
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Time contribution will be better for our future as opposed to continuing to live as we do as unenlightened zombies.


I get how your system works. I'm saying, that the government will require certain hours in order to acquire certain things. I'm just using more concrete examples than you are. I get that we are free to choose where we take our business to, I'm just pointing out that there will be no choice. The reason is because there will be a monopoly. There isn't choice with a monopoly.

You have failed to discuss even one iota of my five reasons businesses succeed argument. And to be honest...that's all I really talked about last round. You blindly state that there will still be risk and reward to business, but don't give me an example of what reward there is. There reward is survival. Not very rewarding if you ask me. I prefer thriving over surviving. Granted, one comes before the other, but people don't strive to survive meagerly. They strive to survive extravagantly. Let's discuss this idea of businesses being able to hire more effectively.

I'm creating a new paragraph because of how important this is...One of two things is guaranteed to happen...Either the restaurant owners (who if you've ever worked in a restaurant know management puts in a lot of hours and has a lot of stress) is going to have a good time hiring because they're perfectly content with all the stress and long hours to receive the same benefits their dish washer gets, or they're going to have a very difficult time hiring because people don't want to work a meaningless job. I don't think you fully understand your own argument here. People aren't clamoring to be servers. People aren't clamoring to be dish washers. People aren't clamoring to do jobs that suck. I'm from a very oil rich state, and the jobs on rigs, are some of the longest, hardest, and most difficult jobs on the face of this earth. But they get compensated extremely well for it. If you tell a rig hand that he's going to get the same rewards as the guy who writes crossword puzzles, he's going to quit working on a rig. And so is everyone else. So now there is no more oil because you've de-incentivized the very key jobs of GETTING IT OUT OF THE GROUND! So now, because we don't have oil, we don't have people driving cars. Good thing for the environment, bad for jobs. Because this means we don't have people making cars, and you can ask Detroit how that works out. We also don't have car dealers. So our transportation sector of the economy is non-existent. But turns out...that a lot of people doing research on how to get greener ways of transportation, are car companies. So now, not only do we not have cars, but we don't have people inventing newer ways travel. So now that people can't travel, they have to find jobs very close to their home. They have to eat very close to their home. They have to vacation very close to their home. They have to do everything very close to their home. This would be devastating on tourism in many areas. This would devastate the rural areas. People can't farm massive farms because their combine doesn't have any gas. So now they're forced to hire more labor on farms or just work a small farm.

In situation A (hire more people) you have to have a lot of people who want to work on a farm. I de-tassled corn for a summer as a teenager, and it's not enjoyable. So now we're faced with the dilemma of people still not wanting to work difficult jobs for the same reward they can get easier. That's where you're misunderstanding my point. People don't have a passion to work crappy jobs. They want to work easy jobs. How many people would claim to be professional video gamers and just sit at home playing video games all day? They'd have to get paid for it because it's a legitimate profession in the status quo. What about professional poker players? There are way too many holes in this idea. But let's discuss situation B. When they work a smaller farm, there isn't as much food as there is now, and even if there was, there is no way to get it around the country. So we see a massive influx of people moving to the areas where food is able to be produced. This massive influx of people that don't want to work farms are now required to be fed by the food these smaller farms produce. That's not going to happen. And because very few people have a burning desire in their heart to toil endlessly picking beans...we don't have enough food. Do you see what's happening here? I'm making easy, step-by-step arguments that are logical and based on fact. This plan just can't work.

But let me reiterate why having currency is such a good idea.

1. Currency is a means at valuing one good over another. There are certain goods that are more desirable, less abundant, and higher quality. That doesn't mean that those are the only goods bought. In fact, lots of goods purchased are more abundant, lesser quality, and less desirable. The reason is because they are cheaper. You don't have cheap goods without currency. But cheap goods drive the economy. In fact, they create a lot of jobs. Walmart is a major industry that not only creates jobs for the people it hires, but also is a big enough corporation that its suppliers are able to just supply it and maintain profit if they want to. So their suppliers are able to hire and grow. Because the more money you make while being successful, the more money you can invest so that you can be more successful. It's funny that you brought up medicine, because right now because almost half of the top 49 pharmaceutical companies exist in the United States, and those companies have a much more significant R&D cost than those overseas. And this is because there are no price caps on how much companies can sell their medicines for. When price is able to be set by the companies, they make more money. When that happens, they have more money to invest into developing new drugs. You say that there is no money in finding cures...and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. Because the company that finds the cure to AIDS or cancer is going to be the richest pharmaceutical company in a matter of hours. There is a lot of money in helping people. And that's the understatement of the year. People want to live. Fix dying, and they'll give you as much as you want for it.

Wall Street doesn't manipulate prices. I already told you all of this. It's a consumer driven economy. There's a point where the consumers are willing to pay for something, and the producer is willing to supply it. The producer doesn't just simply put a pricetag on it and people pay for it. They have to meet the consumer demand. Now for my own quote...

"Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn"t run on greed? You think Russia doesn"t run on greed? You think China doesn"t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it"s only the other fellow who"s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn"t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn"t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you"re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it"s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
R13; Milton Friedman
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Supercooper1988 4 years ago
One of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard "this competition is what is causing the problems of our society." If you want a good look at the types of problems that arise with this sort of thinking, read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" In it he discusses why we can't simply construct people's lives, but that they are already coordinated on the free market. And this isn't just in economics anymore. This is in every aspect of our life. Economics is the study of decision making and their consequences. The idea that we can just create a governmental system that directly controls what people have is a very bad idea. It leads to fascism. And this isn't a "it will probably lead to fascism" statement. It's a guaranteed "it WILL lead to fascism" Plato's "Republic" talks about this.
Posted by TheNewSSA 4 years ago
The idea in this video can be accomplished with a time contribution system.
Posted by Supercooper1988 4 years ago
Because it is very early in the morning...I said anthropologists instead of philanthropists. I thought it sounded funny lol. My bad.
Posted by TheNewSSA 4 years ago
@Shadowguynick - I don't think it is fair to add anything as I am in the middle of the debate but I do want to make sure you fully understand that the time contribution system as I previously described is fundamentally different from using any form of currency. I think CON will agree with me on that. I have copied the portion of my opening argument that explains it here:

"The concept is simple 1 hour of work equals 1 hour of work, period. Banking of time in any form will be forbidden as well as swapping, trading or dealing of time. Subscribers will need to satisfy the hours in order to receive full benefits. Those hours can be satisfied by working, studying, raising a child, community or military service and farming. Subscribers to the New Social Security will in turn receive everything they need including but not limited to food, clothing, residence, fuel, education, health care, personal goods, housewares, transportation, leisure travel."
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Lol the system pro is describing uses hours... As money. Its essentially no different between the two. I would say why money is better but the debate isnt over yet
Posted by TheNewSSA 4 years ago
@Supercooper1998 - Sorry about that I ran into technical difficulties pasting my comments from word and ran out of time. I have allowed for 5 rounds if you don't mind please more comments to this round and submit and I will respond with my comments right away. I have completed it all just have to paste it. Thanks
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Get Danielle to debate this, I think she would really enjoy it, and you might too.
Posted by NausicaaFrostfire 4 years ago
I would really like to debate you on this but I agree with your argument to much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Waxwing 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason I vote for Pro is because I noticed a big chunk of Con's argument was dedicated to the notion that in a time-based economy as described by Pro, there would be a government monopoly on production, which is just an obvious error. Pro's system doesn't even actually replace currency. Time would still be a currency, in that it is exchanged for goods and services (and even remains in a private market.) Our current currency system is identical, the government is the sole issuer of legal tender. The main difference between Pro's proposed system and our current one is that the value of labor would be fixed. One hour spent researching medical cures is equal in income to one hour spent repairing bicycles. Prices, products and exchange would otherwise remain the same. Where he does address this, he simply makes the bald assertion that "people only do anything for money", no sources or explanation, and never mentions that perhaps the inherent value of some labor is worth more than others