Matthew,

The purpose of any economy is to determine how to allocate limited goods and services across an economy and just as importantly how to produce those goods and services. So in that respect, the economy is as you say a massive logistical system and therefore anything to do with the distribution of goods and services is a “logistical” issue.

But how do we insure that enough people “invest” their time in education and then apply that education to produce the goods and services? The simple answer is “we pay them for their time”. But you think of that as “money”, money is simply a form of conveyance, but what we really “pay” workers with is houses to live in, food to eat, cars to drive, etc. So think about your proposal in a system where everything is bartered. How would you get health care if you had nothing to barter for it?

Pretend there is no “money” in circulation and everything you consume is something you have to trade for. Money has a way of making people believe that it is something it is not. It is simply a way for you to “store” the work (services) you did in an easy transportable way so you can trade it for something else. Could you imagine sending Amazon a couple of dozen eggs in the mail for a new shirt? If government forgets this like it has on occasion, money becomes worthless and people stop trading for it.

Read my article on “sustainable socialism”. The underlying problem with your premise is that people want to trade their “time” for the “things” they want and not things you want. But you want to force them to give up their time for free so you can have “your time” to do what you want.

Is that fair to take someone’s time for free, so you can have your time for what you want to spend it on?

We form societies and specialize, we create complex trading systems, that use money to facilitate those trades. All of this specialization and trading infrastructure helps us to become more “productive”. It is one of the primary reasons we form societies, so that people can specialize and be more productive and enjoy a higher standard of living than if they had to produce everything they consume themselves.

As a result of this specialization, people collectively are so productive that they produce more than they need to sustain themselves and so they have a surplus to “spend” on things “they want” but do not need.

Read my article on “Sustainable Socialism” on Medium. To some degree people are willing to share from “their surplus” with others because of a sense of “kinship”. But in general most people look at the facts and circumstances of those “who need their help” and determine if that person “really needs it” or is taking advantage of them. If you have only so much to “share”, who should get it?

In effect, you are suggesting that you have a right to demand others share with you from their “surplus of goods and services” so you can spend your time doing other things. You are saying I am entitled to what you are making, rather than asking them if they are willing to share with you… You have taken what was once an act of compassion and twisted it into an obligation…

When all is said and done you are “selfishly” saying people should spend their time working for you… not because you are suffering a hardship… but so you can spend your time how you want.