@Rabert:
Why? What prevented the crisis to occur in Germany, in your opinion?
I, and most others, think mainly out of three reasons. Firstly, Germany always was adamant in austerity. (..)
But then, some capitalist countries work better than other "capitalist" countries, isn't it? Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Japan, South Korea, Germany and others were had no crisis, because their capitalist systems are more realistic than others.
Some rules were respected, and that prevented the crisis.
It's the people who have to decide what those rules should be like and to make sure that the government is implementing them, it's the people who have to put the pressure on governments in order to keep them transparent.
But the people in general have no idea what generated the crisis, what rules the government has to implement and they don't care if the government is transparent or not.
I have even seen people who claim that the economic crisis was created because now we have too many computers who replaced humans. Well if we have more technology, we can just work less, isn't it? Keep speculation and corruption under control, implement some other measures (like renting land to the people), and then everyone can get a job and have a decent life.
Anyways, no matter how much money Greece and Spain will borrow, they can simply burn those money. Or, better, they just cut some "0"s in the bank accounts - no need to waste resources for burning money.
They (the governments) can do that because they are not transparent. And they will do that because they want to suffocate those countries in debts, to make their people to accept changes: increasing retirement age and creation of United States of Europe.

Anyways, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think, if the people want to better understand the crisis, then they should share such opinions and knowledge, and then they can apply in one country (USA for example) the measures that prevented the crisis in another country (Denmark for example).

And the punishment may be as simple as being ejected from the community.
That's an extreme violation of human rights. Sometimes, unfortunately, evidence can be and it is fabricated. I don't believe you can accept to lose German nationality and to be deported to Somalia, even if you commit a crime, and especially when you know you are not guilty.
The right to have a nationality is one of the most fundamental rights - at least as long as the world is divided into countries. And you can't make a step forward if you just wait for all the countries to be dissolved.
So that kind of punishment, while it can be an easy solution, is quite unacceptable.

it looks like in Germany it's the people in the government who decide what happens with such public property. ... So it's not the public who decides, but the people in the (local) government who decide.
I was not talking about Germany, but an ideal situation. Germany is as capitalistic, as consumism addicted, as money enslaved as the rest of the "developed" world. When the public should decide, it should have the means to do so. What we call democracy is as far away from participation of the public in decision making as any dictatorship.
In an ideal situation, the people check the government, they make sure the government is transparent, and they engage in the decision process. They can even eliminate the need of a government, but only if they engage enough. In the developed world, the people have the freedom to do all those things. But they don't bother to involve into community issues.
Therefore, in a money free society, if the people do not involve into issues, then they will delegate someone (the government) to do it. And that will leave space for incompetence and abuses, and then the people won't be able to use and benefit from the public property as they should.
And then, the good use of public property doesn't depend on using money or not. It only depends on the people to involve into the issue, to make sure the public property is used for the good of all.

And that's the case exactly because the public doesn't bother to involve into the issue.
Because it doesn't matter to them.
Because they don't care, isn't it? They can use their brains and they can understand that one day they will be affected too.

They cannot participate in decision making,
You are very very wrong here, so to speak. Yes, they can't participate in the next second. But they can create the opportunity to be able to participate. They can make associations, organizations, petitions. Many times, government decisions were rejected or created to comply with the people's requirements. The people asked for a certain law and the government had to implement it. So the people can participate in decision making. Unfortunately, most of the time they don't bother do do it, and it's their fault.

and they are rarely struck more then peripherally and insignificantly by the decisions of government. It's the piece by piece, each of it not really painful, but added over the decades, which has led to the global plutocracy we have today. There is no outcry over a tiny removal of freedom, especially in the name of safety and security or counterterrorism, but many of those tiny removals end up in the Orwellian situation we find all over the world now.
The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights for the people. It's only the people who wil have do it. We can't assume that we have to wait for extraterrestrials to come and do it for us.

Please explain, how the thousands of junkies in Miami, New York, Chicago or Los Angeles will get gold, silver, platinum or even artificial diamonds every day to pay their dealer? Remember, there is not more the 1/3 ounze of gold available per person on average. Silver or platinum even less. The pure existence of money allows for crime, which would just not feasible at all without it. Human trafficking, drug dealing or banking among it.
Annual production of silver is ten times more than gold (20,000 tons vs 2,000 tons) so it's more, not less. Copper is produced in much bigger quantity: 15 million tons / year. Aluminium: 35 million tons / year.
Not everyone needs to trade gold, only the richest will do that. And that's how it works today too.
The junkies can trade copper, the big boys will trade the copper for gold. The junkies can give all kind of products (including food, raw materials, less valuable metals - iron, copper, aluminium, etc. or even work). The drug dealers will sell those goods for gold. The drug dealers will sell iron, copper, aluminium, silver, gold, platinum in order to get drugs. And they will maintain their profit in gold/platinum/diamonds, of course. Each person will use the currency they can afford at their social status (in organized crime there is always a social status). The people with the lowest ranking will trade aluminium. The richest will trade gold.
And, of course, the junkies can also trade their printed "Ithaca Hours" for drugs.
But keep in mind that my intelligence (and probably even yours too) is minuscule comparing to criminal minds when it comes to inventivity about breaking the law. If you don't believe me, check how inventive the people are in jail. They can do so many amazing things with the most basic objects. They can jam a door with a bit of paper or a rag, and so on.

99% of all money in the world is computer data. With your reasoning, you should get rid of it as soon as possible. Look at the Ithaca Hours for instance.
The money that I am getting are measuring only my working hours and nothing else. I don't get money from anything else. And there are many people like me. Those numbers go to my bank account, and they are named "Euros". My working hours are stored in computer memory. I can use the credit card and buy with those working hours.

If the people are payed in working hours, then they can't buy from shops or agents that have no internet connection. For those kind of transactions, you might want to have some printed working hours (not much, just 1%), just like Ithaca hours are printed: "HOURS are printed on high-quality paper and use faint graphics that would be difficult to reproduce". If your neighbor needs your potatoes but he doesn't have the tomatoes you need in exchange, then he will try to pay you in printed working hours. Then you can get the tomatoes later from someone else in exchange for those printed working hours. When you need to exchange some goods, you can't expect the other person to have exactly what you need. That's why the printed working hours will be a universal currency in places where there is no internet connection.
The people in power can hack the accounts and they can modify their working hours, just as they can hack bank accounts today and hack those numbers that express Euros or Dollars.
The people can make gifts in working hours. Parents, uncles, brothers, can save working hours and then make them as a gift to you, so you will have much more working hours than someone else who works less and has alcoholic parents. Some can be much more rich than others.
You work for a cooperative, you are payed in working hours and the cooperative will sell goods to consumers (like you) in exchange for their working hours. If the cooperative is creating a monopoly or a cartel, it can overprice the products, and the consumers have to pay a lot of working hours to buy them. Once such speculation is allowed, people will have to work 22 hours / day in order to buy only the food they need to survive. If the people do not involve in the issue, then the government can tolerate such speculation.
If the economy will not be efficient, then the working hours will not value much. With a lot of working hours you will be able to buy very little.
And then, what is the difference between working hours and money?

Say car making workers are payed with 40 Euros / hours while you are payed with 10 Euros / hour for making houses. That means they buy houses cheap and you buy cars expensive. That's a form of speculation and it should be addressed. Sure, some people work more efficient than others and they deserve to be payed more. But when the final products they create are overpriced, then probably they are over-payed.

Not exactly what I would like to have, but it points into the right direction.
My advice is: talk with others like you about the issue and decide what you will like to have. Don't just pass the dream of RBE to your children. Your children will have to do one day the things you are not doing today, if they will want RBE. And then they will probably say that you were lazy, to let them do the things you were dreaming about, instead of actually doing it.

No inflation, no deflation, no collapse, no speculation. So time is a perfect basis to determine the worth of a commodity, simply by adding up all human work time directly or indirectly invested in it.
If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products. They can overcharge you, so with 10 hours of work per day, you won't even be able to get enough food.

However, people like you, who want a better society, they should start building it, according to their vision. Even if they don't physically build it, they can start to talk about building it - that's the fist and very important step do do. Until they can start physical work, there are a lot of aspects that should be clarified. It's very important to pave the way and to establish how they will do it, in what order, what they will need, and so on. You can't build a better society by just assuming everything will work fine just by removing a few concepts (in this case: money and private property). You have to make sure that you (the group) will be competent enough to make the community functional.
When you will start to make those communities, you will see for yourself that the main factors of success is the fact that the people are honest, competent and involve into talking and solving community issues, not the lack of money and private property.
If they will be incompetent, then they will have not even enough resources to survive. If they won't involve into community issues, then they will delegate others do do it, and then they will depend on other people's (in)competence and will. You (the people) have to make the system work, you can't expect that the system will fix everything for you.
But it's a very bad idea to refuse to start it, always finding an excuse for it.
If you just dream about RBE and pass the dream to others, then your children and grandchildren will have to do all the work to implement the RBE. And they might blame you for not trying to implement the dream.

You said that you are not a follower of TVP or Fresco. Still, your ideas are very similar with those spread by them.
And they act very much like the "communists". The "communist" leaders also were talking about a new system where the resources will be put to good use for the people, where the system will work for the people and so on.
But they refused to engage the people into debates, in order to involve them into building communism. They refused to talk about future issues, lying the people that the system will take care of everything. They refused to answer to the people, their supporters were supposed to just listen and follow them.
When those leaders got enough support from a part (minority) of the population, they overthrew their governments, and they enforced a new system.
They called their system "communists" and they terrorized the people in the name of communism.
I would not be surprised at all, if Jacque Fresco was a supporter of criminals like Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. In fact, I would be surprised if he was not.
Because he acts very much the like those "communist" leaders acted before they came into power: He has an excuse for everything, he can always blame "capitalism" and governments, he avoids real debates. (Talking in a conference and accepting a few question is far from being a debate). He promises that the system will fix everything, refusing to train the people to make sure they will be capable to handle community issues.
And then, where is the difference between Fresco and those "communist" leaders? Because I can't really see much difference.
It really looks like a "communist" repainting his ideology as "resource-based economy".

Building a better society and creating a RBE society has nothing to do with eliminating money.
Money is used to encode information about resources into a single value.  Resource-based economics depend on direct measurement of each parameter separately.
I thought a resource-based economy is about creating and providing to everyone the access to the resources they need. In a functional capitalism, anyone can have access to the resources they need. Check Sweden, Finland, etc. for example. The people can further involve into community issues and make their life even better than that. So, you are wrong.

In that case, there is still need for police and prisons
That is some dumb shit.  Police and prisons are not only not the only way to deal with antisocial behavior, they actually encourage antisocial behavior.  Medical treatment, and orientation to prosocial behavior does work.
Prove it. Prove that it works for everyone who commits antisocial behavior.

This may require isolation, which is not the same as imprisonment, and should not include isolation from friends or loved ones.
In order to check who committed a specific crime, to gather evidence, to find the perpetrator, to isolate someone, you need police.

I guess you've never actually built any open-source hardware, because it's not actually so simple.  For one thing, each implementation of open-source hardware is slightly different, due to resource constraints.
But slightly different hardware is much better than a huge variety of proprietary hardware, isn't it?

Not all problems have been solved right away, or even encountered.
Not all, but the most common yes. I wasn't talking about an immediate solution. In a few years, the most common problems will be encountered (that's why they are called common, isn't it?) and then they will be documented.

If the community is trading, then that implies that there is some exclusivity over the products of their labor.  In other words, they have property which is owned by the community acting as a private entity.  If the community is paying taxes, then it is part of the nation to which it is paying taxes.  This subsequently means it is subject to its laws, such as those in many places that outlaw rainwater catch tanks, or permit laws which constrain possible productive activities to those allowed by the establishment.
Sure. The establishment won't allow them to create nuclear bombs, for example. The DoET will still have to touch money but the rest of the community will not have to touch any money, because the DoET will be their interface with the exterior. The land where they live will be owned by some entity (the community or the government who will rent the land to the community), but inside the community there will not be any private property. They won't have absolute freedom, maybe they won't be allowed to install rainwater catch tanks, but they will still have enough freedom to function. The more people will join the community, the more solutions they will find to increase their freedom. A step forward is the way to start, and it's much better than doing nothing.
So there is no real excuse for not starting such communities.

Okay, so how do you build a solar panel?  Tell me without looking it up on the internet, in a scientific journal, or a copyrighted book.
It's not a sin to buy a copyrighted book, which has 95 years of copyright. The knowledge contained in the book can be patented for maximum 20 years.
So, you check internet, scientific journals, buy books, and if the technology described there has it's patents expired, then you can use it.

Can't you see that you find excuses for not building the solutions? (..)
And you find excuses for not building an open-source washing machine as you previously suggested.
But I am supporting the project with money, and that will eventually lead to the development of the open-source washing machine. The more people like me, the more chances to make the open source machine faster. Are you supporting a community that started to live without money? TVP, Zeitgeist and others have much more supporters than OSE, so they could start such communities already.

Yet nearly all mobile networks depend on the infrastructure of the big three wireless providers.  This is one case where it is nearly impossible for a small company to build an effective service, because mobile customers have an expectation to be able to use their phones outside of their local area, meaning there is a large infrastructure requirement.
Yet the prices of the mobile phone conversations are quite cheap and getting cheaper each year. Because the government doesn't allow to the "Big Three" to create cartels.

But there is yet to be a fix for the vendor lock-in that Microsoft creates through its cartel with GPU chipset manufacturers.  Try buying a graphics card and using it on Linux.
I was using Linux (Ubuntu) a lot. I had various graphics cards (with 3D acceleration) and had no problems with them. The vendors have no obligation to provide Linux drivers for free. The more supporters Linux has, the more power to create drivers.

I thought we had already established that the so-called “communist” countries were not even analogous to a communist society, due to its use of money and state property, both internally and externally.  If there were “hidden properties” and “privileges” to be exchanged, then it wasn’t classless, and it did not eliminate private property.
It's not about the "communist" countries. I was just giving an example for you to see that the people can find ways to trade hidden property and privilege in any system. The society can't totally eliminate hidden property unless it polices everyone. And even then the police can hide evidence in exchange for hidden property and privilege. You can't eliminate illegal (hidden) property just by outlawing it - that's why it's called illegal. Once some people have more and others have less, they will start to form hierarchy - that is, social position and classes. The solution is to have an efficient police. Otherwise the people will trade those banned goods.

And the punishment may be as simple as being ejected from the community.
So that kind of punishment, while it can be an easy solution, is quite unacceptable.

Again, I'm not talking about Germany or any other nation state. I'm talking about a community which agrees on rules and which is small enough that anonymity cannot be used to hide behind. A community of let's say 10,000 people let's say in Germany or in the US. Someone violates the rules, he knows the consequence: he will not be welcomed anymore on the 10 squaremiles of this community. If he does it anyways, his decision, not that of the community. The ruleset of the community and the methods to inforce it need to be designed in a way, that it is quite robust against abuse, obviously. Probably there are other, milder consequences then expulsion. Just like any ruleset of any community should be, and the rulesets of most nation states, while much more elaborate and complex, not only claim to be, but are widely recognized as such.

They cannot participate in decision making,
You are very very wrong here, so to speak.

You truly think that the public electorate decides about politics and policy? :-O Look at this, and then think again. It's not different in Germany or other countries, just not that obvious. Our planet is ruled by a global plutocracy, not by its people. Unless you think a cross every few years on a paper, where millions or billions of dollars have been spent before to convince you not only where to make this cross, but that making a cross every 4 or 5 years itself is perfect democracy, is worth to be called "participation in decision making".

The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights
for the people. It's only the people who wil have do it.

It's people like you who are instrumental to avoid that. The present system is designed to favour the rich and to disadvantage the poor. Every year our plutocracy spends on average around 130 USD per person, from the starving infant in Somalia to the dement pensionist in Florida, to make people addicted to consumism and keep them addicted. It starts at the delivery room and ends on the death bed. And money is simply the stuff you need to feed that addiction. How do you want to get billions of brainwashed and addicted people to abdicate from their addictions and to start change things? Without any means or any funds to do it, and with the combined power of the whole global establishment against you? Your truly believe people will see the light and change the way they are ruled over, when they don't even understand what money is and what it does to them?

Annual production of silver is ten times more than gold (20,000 tons vs 2,000 tons) so it's more, not less.

In contrary to gold, that silver is not available for currency, because it is needed for industrial production. We are talking about what is available as a substitute for currency. And, btw, the amount of available silver is rapidly declining. In 20 to 30 years there is no more silver which can be mined at reasonable costs.

I don't know what your education is, but obviously, you have no idea how money is created and how it works. If you think copper will substitute, why don't the dealers don't just accept those tiny copper coins already, which are around all over the world in abundance? Do you think they will be worth more, when the paper is gone? Or do you think the junkies just happily hand over their 25kg bar of copper for their weakly supply of drugs, giving it to the dealer with his 40-ton-truck, which is already half full with aluminium and tin?

But keep in mind that my intelligence (and probably even yours too) is
minuscule comparing to criminal minds when it comes to inventivity about
breaking the law.

Just to reiterate again, the whole reason crime is profitble is the existence of money, because money is easily transportable and hideable, and extremely versatile how it can be used afterwards. You can't hide and trade with a few tons of copper or aluminium as you can do with computer data or bills. But I get the impression, that you are not interested in that and probably claim next that the criminals will invent to shrink metals or something.

The money that I am getting are measuring only my working hours and nothing else.

Then you've got the short stick. I know people who have much more money then you very likely will have, and never work. There obviously is something else. Do you know that the approx. 1,100 billionaires we have on our planet own four times more then the poorer half of the planet, that's 3.5 billion people, all together? Who do you think, works more? Who do you think, creates the money? I repeat, you have no idea what money is and how it works. What is not your fault at all, because that is not taught in schools.

And then, what is the difference between working hours and money?

You may want to look at this thread.

My advice is: talk with others like you about the issue and decide what
you will like to have. Don't just pass the dream of RBE to your
children.

Where did I talk about RBE?

If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products.

You still don't get the difference between measuring worth and setting worth, do you? And where do I advocate to have speculation allowed?

However, people like you, who want a better society, they should start building it, according to their vision.

Actually, I'm trying to do that: www.fugium.org (not very much translated from German to other languages so far, unfortunately).

gonzo on communism

You like to generalize, don't you? Just because I don't want money, I'm a follower of TVP and RBE. Just because I don't want property, I'm a communist. Stop thinking in drawers, when you want to understand what is discussed.

Again, gonzo, you should start to think. Take the red pill. You are entranced by the establishment you are defending. Worse, you know there is a red pill, but you decline to swallow it, out of fear to see the harsh reality. A reality, where 0,15% of people own more then half of the planet and don't need to work at all, where just 10 companies (which are, btw and unsurprisingly, all financial industry) control more then 20% of all turnover of the nearly 50,000 companies which work transnational. Where money is instrumental to allow for all that.

Actually, I understand that. You do belong to the rich 20% of our planet (did you know, that a welfare receiver in Germany, and that would be the same in most of Europe, has at least double the money available then the poorer 80% of the global populace?), and to acknowledge all that would make you feel bad, and to reevaluate your education, your indoctrination and your convictions. I took that pill, and I have suffered, and I have changed my mind.

I came to a similar proposal like the RBE, but from a completely different point of view: scarcity. What is, if I remember it correctly, a 180 degree opposite position from TVP.

We do not know how long the resources of our planet must hold out for the generations to follow. We need to assume, that they won't be able to be replaced, until a replacement is not only in the scetchbooks but truly tested and available. When you have a limited ressource for an unlimited time and an unknown number of users, you need to rationalize. To be able to rationalize and distribute on a fair basis, you need to know what is available and how many want to use it. Since you don't know how long your stock needs to hold for how many people, the mantra must be need. We can use what is still remaining of our planets resources only within the limits of absolute and urgent need. This just does not allow for private property and distribution of resources based on nepotism and profit.

Consumism and profit is just the contrary of that. We burn our resources like there is no tomorrow, like there won't be any people on earth by the end of this century or in 500 years, let's not talk about 10,000 or 100,000 years. So we need to manage the global ressources, we need to know what we have and where they are, and we need to prevent depletion and unwarranted use. Et voila, you have something very similar to RBE.

A community of let's say 10,000 people let's say in Germany or in the US. Someone violates the rules, he knows the consequence: he will not be welcomed anymore on the 10 squaremiles of this community.
After living 20-30 years in such community and, instead of buying your own land and contributing to a retirement fund, you invested your time/energy/life in the community. If you are forced to leave, then you practically wasted your life. You have to go to another place where you have no house, no land, no retirement. No way such a penalty can be enforced.

You truly think that the public electorate decides about politics and policy?
I haven't said that they decide. I said they can decide. It's their fault they don't bother to participate into the decision process. Amnesty International for example has 3 million members around the world. If it would have 300 million or 3 billion members, then the world would be much more different than what is today, isn't it?

The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights for the people. It's only the people who will have do it.
It's people like you who are instrumental to avoid that. The present system is designed to favour the rich and to disadvantage the poor. Every year our plutocracy spends on average around 130 USD per person, from the starving infant in Somalia to the dement pensionist in Florida, to make people addicted to consumism and keep them addicted.
Oh really? If there would be more people like me, then Green Peace, Red Cross, Amnesty International, World Food Programme, etc. would have much more members. And not only that - they would have to implement solutions, not to waste money like they do now.

It starts at the delivery room and ends on the death bed. And money is simply the stuff you need to feed that addiction. How do you want to get billions of brainwashed and addicted people to abdicate from their addictions and to start change things?
I am participating and trying to do my part of the job in order to improve the things on this world: I support OSE, charitable organizations, I ask the people to put pressure on those organizations in order to make them act genuine, I am asking the people to build cooperatives, solutions.
If I can do it, others can do it too, isn't it? I could have been an alcoholic, a junkie, I could have been pleasing myself in many other ways, but I am not! Those billions of brainwashed and addicted people can also do the things I do. That's how they can do it. Stop finding an excuse for anything, because it's ridiculous!

Without any means or any funds to do it, and with the combined power of the whole global establishment against you?
There are many cooperatives in this world. The establishment is not crushing them. The rest of the people can also start cooperatives. They can at least ask for help. For example the "communists" at OWS: what should I (and other people like me) do? Shall I beg them to accept my donations so they can have funds to start cooperatives?

Your truly believe people will see the light and change the way they are ruled over, when they don't even understand what money is and what it does to them?
Stop finding excuses for everyone and for everything they do and for everything they are not doing. They can do a lot of voluntary work to help with community issues, including editing Wikipedia, community work, even cleaning the streets together - that's still much better than doing nothing.
If you can support an organization like OSE, if you can talk on web forums about improving things, if you are working to create a better community on fugium, the others can also do something similar.

In contrary to gold, that silver is not available for currency, because it is needed for industrial production. We are talking about what is available as a substitute for currency. And, btw, the amount of available silver is rapidly declining. In 20 to 30 years there is no more silver which can be mined at reasonable costs.
How much of it ( % ) is used for industrial production? And the things can change, isn't it? A part of the silver will be diverted from industrial production for using as a currency. And the currency will change hands but won't disappear, even if the mining of the silver will stop.

Metals Annual Production
Gold: 2,500 tons
Tungsten: 19,000 tons
Silver: 25,000 tons
Cobalt: 50,000 tons
Molybdenum: 180,000 tons - http://www.worldofwallstreet.us/metals-annual-production-.html
Tin: 350,000 tons
Nickel: 1,500,000 tons
Zinc: 12,000,000 tons
Copper: 15,000,000 tons
Aluminium: 35,000,000 tons

It looks like the best candidates to be used as a currency are Nickel, Tin, Molybdenum but also copper is not to be neglected, since most of it goes to industrial production, just a fraction will be used as a currency.

I don't know what your education is, but obviously, you have no idea how money is created and how it works. If you think copper will substitute, why don't the dealers don't just accept those tiny copper coins already, which are around all over the world in abundance? Do you think they will be worth more, when the paper is gone? Or do you think the junkies just happily hand over their 25kg bar of copper for their weakly supply of drugs, giving it to the dealer with his 40-ton-truck, which is already half full with aluminium and tin?
I am self educated and I think school is mostly rubbish at least after secondary school. I do have quite an idea about how money are created and how they work. The dealers don't accept the tiny copper coins because at the moment they have a better alternative: money. Remove money and then they will be very interested about copper, zinc, tin, cobalt, etc. The copper will definitely worth more when the paper money will be gone. The junkies will probably hand over 2.5 kg of nickel or 0.5 kg of tin, or 0.25 kg of molybdenum or 0.1 kg of cobalt for their weekly supply of drugs.

Just to reiterate again, the whole reason crime is profitble is the existence of money, because money is easily transportable and hideable, and extremely versatile how it can be used afterwards. You can't hide and trade with a few tons of copper or aluminium as you can do with computer data or bills. But I get the impression, that you are not interested in that and probably claim next that the criminals will invent to shrink metals or something.
The drug dealers will also use the currency of Tuvalu, if Tuvalu will be the last country to use money. The organized crime will create their own money from brass, bronze and other alloys. They will print their own money, with sophisticated printers hidden in some remote locations.
You can reiterate it as much as you want but there is always something that can be used as a currency.

Then you've got the short stick. I know people who have much more money then you very likely will have, and never work. There obviously is something else. Do you know that the approx. 1,100 billionaires we have on our planet own four times more then the poorer half of the planet, that's 3.5 billion people, all together? Who do you think, works more? Who do you think, creates the money? I repeat, you have no idea what money is and how it works. What is not your fault at all, because that is not taught in schools.
Wrong. You have no idea how humans and society work. Those people have more because they are allowed to speculate. Because they are part of organized crime. Because they have connections with the people in power so they can drain the people's money.
Eliminate money and they will have more gold/silver/cobalt/tin/nickel than others. Eliminate money and then they will ask too many working hours for basic products (speculation). They will drain the people's working hours and resources by inflating prices of the goods they sell to the governments.

If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products.
You still don't get the difference between measuring worth and setting worth, do you?
Please explain how the difference between measuring worth and setting worth can prevent speculation. Your working hours worth nothing if you have to give too much working hours for a basic product (speculation).

And where do I advocate to have speculation allowed?
You don't have to personally allow speculation. The speculation exists because the community allows it. It's not the money who allows the speculation, but it's the people and the governments the people are electing into power who allows speculation. Speculation can exist with or without money, as long as the people allow it.

gonzo on communism
You like to generalize, don't you? Just because I don't want money, I'm a follower of TVP and RBE.
Ok, maybe I am wrong, but it really looks like you were inspired and indoctrinated by TVP or one of it's (ex-)branches.

Just because I don't want property, I'm a communist. Stop thinking in drawers, when you want to understand what is discussed.
I haven't suggested that you are a communist. I was giving you an example with those "communists" who can't be bothered to actually build communism. They just want a communist system to fix everything for them. And you have an excuse for them or for people like them anytime.

Again, gonzo, you should start to think. Take the red pill. You are entranced by the establishment you are defending.
I started to think and I already got the red pill. I am not defending the establishment at all. By the contrary, I am calling the people to build a new and better world: transparency (can be improved by working on wikipedia for example), open source hardware, real charity instead of fake charity, public housing, etc.

Worse, you know there is a red pill, but you decline to swallow it, out of fear to see the harsh reality.
Haha, that's a good one! Yes, I have already seen the harsh reality: The people always find an excuse for anything. When they are poor, they complain about the rest of the society. But when they have a good life, they don't give a fuking shit to involve into improving things. That's how most of the people are, and that's a very harsh (and also scary) reality. It's you that have to take the red pill and to stop believing in rubbish like there is always an excuse and that there is a magical solution.

A reality, where 0,15% of people own more then half of the planet and don't need to work at all, where just 10 companies (which are, btw and unsurprisingly, all financial industry) control more then 20% of all turnover of the nearly 50,000 companies which work transnational. Where money is instrumental to allow for all that.
The speculation is instrumental to allow for all of that. And it's the government who is instrumental for allowing speculation. And it's the people who are instrumental to allow the governments to act like that.
There is no magic solution. The solution is in the people. They can decide to take action and to change things.

Remove money and then the nickel/tin/cobalt/Tuvalu dollars/illegal money will be the purpose of those who commit crime and acts of corruption. They will aim to acquire those goods just like they aim to acquire money today - because they are greedy, they want to be above others and to feel superior. That motivation has nothing to do with money. The money are just an instrument to facilitate exchange of goods but also can be used a symbol of status. Remove money and they will find other currency and another symbol of status. It's not the money what they are aiming for, but it's higher social status and supremacy. Again, you have no idea how humans work.

Actually, I understand that. You do belong to the rich 20% of our planet (did you know, that a welfare receiver in Germany, and that would be the same in most of Europe, has at least double the money available then the poorer 80% of the global populace?), and to acknowledge all that would make you feel bad, and to reevaluate your education, your indoctrination and your convictions.
I already know that. That's why I claim that the people in the first world have no excuses. Not even the "poor" in the first world have excuses. Most of those who complain are selfish, self-pleasing people. When they have a good life, they don't give a fuking shit about the other 80%. And when they are poor, even then they get a decent life: food, housing for free, unemployment help, training programs, etc. When they are "poor" and unemployed at least they have the time to start new communities and they can work in order to create something lucrative. But still, after taking the red pill, you can find an excuse for them anytime!
Think again. You think took the red pill but in reality you took the white pill.

I took that pill, and I have suffered, and I have changed my mind.
Well if you were born in Germany, then I don't really believe you had the opportunity to see on yourself the pain of real poverty.
Maybe you changed your mind but not enough. When you will stop believing in magic solutions and when you will stop finding excuses for everything, then you might be on the right way to understand reality.

@gonzo

If you are forced to leave, then you practically wasted your life.

It's your decision. You do not have to steal lifetime from others. You know beforehand what the consequence is. If you do it anyways, your problem, not the problem of the community. I have no sympathy for criminals, for people who steal lifetime from others.

And it is done in tens of thousands cases daily around the globe: People are fired because they violated a central rule of their company. They probably loose a lifetime of work, friends and a pension worth far more then their house. So, nothing new here.

I haven't said that they decide. I said they can decide.

How? Waiting the next couple of years and make no cross or a cross at a different name, electing the twin brother of the former person in charge? You cannot decide on politics or policy against the will of the powerful in your city, your county, your state, your country. Except for the Switzerland and some remote indigenious people there is no system which allows you to participate which would be feasible.

Those billions of brainwashed and addicted people can also do the things I do.

I was under this delusion for a long time myself. They can't. That's the nature of addiction.

There are many cooperatives in this world. The establishment is not crushing them.

Of course not. The cooperatives are all capitalistic. I personally don't know one cooperative which does not work with money and which aims not for profit for its members. And I live in the country with one of the largest and most powerful cooperative systems in the world, and have worked for some of them. Unless you are talking about cooperation in the sense of Bob Blain. Those are a rarity and few people are able to leave their old way of life for such, because of their addiction to consumism and resulting dependency on money. Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not. We cannot counter-brainwash them, when the world spents a trillion Dollars each year to keep them docile.

It looks like the best candidates to be used as a currency are Nickel,
Tin, Molybdenum but also copper is not to be neglected, since most of it
goes to industrial production, just a fraction will be used as a
currency.

Do you know why paper money was invented? Do you know why more than 90% of all of today's money isn't even paper anymore? Do you know why in all the history of man only gold and silver was used as coinage, and even when copper and iron were used, they were backed with gold and silver? Just forget about pimps, thugs or thieves carrying around gold and silver or any other metal in big pouches. Just forget all the money artists sending around shiploads of coinage to create profits and receive bonuses. You have a very romantic idealization of money which has nothing to do with reality. And for the own the own money of the crime syndicates: You know that the worth of money is fully dependent on trust? Who would trust a drug baron or a slaver ring? And how would the Johns get the money to be able to pay with it?

I do have quite an idea about how money are created and how they work.

Now I'm really curious. Could you please explain to me how money is created and how it works? At least roughly?

Those people have more because they are allowed to speculate.

Since you are already dealing with it, please explain to me how speculation could work without money, especially with a timebased system based on measurement of a physical constant instead of arbitrarily fixed rates based on a volatile traded commodity. Just create an example, that I understand what you mean.

Please explain how the difference between measuring worth and setting worth can prevent speculation.

You can only measure what exists. Speculation is future, which does not exist yet, thus you cannot measure it.

The speculation exists because the community allows it.

Besides the fact, that speculation within a timebased system does not work (see above), why should a community allow for such a stupid, dangerous and useless thing, if it has the choice?

... but it really looks like you were inspired and indoctrinated by TVP or one of it's (ex-)branches.

Please, say it again. Indoctrination? What is indoctrination, a trillion dollars annually to keep people wanting capitalism and consumism, or (set any amount of money here) TVP and friends are spending annually to spread their message? Get real ...

I haven't suggested that you are a communist.

Believe it or not, but communists hate my proposals just like you are offended by them. Why? Because I don't allow for accumulation of power. What money is for capitalism, is accumulation of power for communists.

... and to stop believing in rubbish like there is always an excuse and that there is a magical solution.

Please explain, what do I excuse and where do I hope for magic? I think you mix me up again with the TVP and RBE people ...

Remove money and then the nickel/tin/cobalt/Tuvalu dollars/illegal money
will be the purpose of those who commit crime and acts of corruption.

Removing money means removing money, not substituting it with metals or other countries money. Criminals want to get money, not to hand out money. But wait, I forgot, you like the criminals that much, that you want to keep them in your community. Probably you will give them a hand in finding a way how the community, who has no use of money to feed their daily needs, suddenly starts to use money to pay pimps and drug dealers within their confines?

Again, you have no idea how humans work.

No, I have only quite a bit more then 5 decades on my back and studied it. I bet, you have far more experience, education and insight then I.

Well if you were born in Germany, then I don't really believe you had
the opportunity to see on yourself the pain of real poverty.

Well, I was born in the 50s, not too long after WWII in Germany. Look at the pictures how Germany looked like a that time. I have seen a little of it life, and my parents were not part of the privileged. Then talk again about not knowing what poverty is.

However, in order to start a RBE community, the people have to at least
start to talk about it. If they just complain and find excuses for not
starting them, then they will never do it.

And there I was starting to believe you were against RBE? I'm confused now ...

Besides the fact, that speculation within a timebased system does not work (see above)
Wow, so you claim that the mill owner can't overcharge it's clients? If the workers are payed in timebased system that means that the costs of milling will be determined (the cost for the mill owner). But that doesn't automagically force him to charge a correct price for milling!

why should a community allow for such a stupid, dangerous and useless thing, if it has the choice?
Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not.
Again, you answered your question yourself.
The community already allow a lot of dangerous and useless things, like removal of their freedom, bit by bit, just because they chose that.
The elimination of money won't reprogram the people, and it won't make them to care more about community issues.

Please, say it again. Indoctrination? What is indoctrination, a trillion dollars annually to keep people wanting capitalism and consumism, or (set any amount of money here) TVP and friends are spending annually to spread their message? Get real ...
The Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious sects (which are based on believing in miracles, by the way) are not indoctrinated based on the money spent on them by the capitalists. Indoctrination works with or without money. TVP and friends just found another religion, based on believing in another miracle: "the elimination of money will automatically fix everything!". Yeah, spread the religion..

Please explain, what do I excuse and where do I hope for magic? I think you mix me up again with the TVP and RBE people ...
"They cannot participate in decision making" - in statements like that (and you made many) you find excuses for the people. While in the same time you contradict yourself and you say they can change things, but they just choose to do not.
You believe in magic because you think the elimination of money will automatically fix everything.

Removing money means removing money, not substituting it with metals or other countries money. Criminals want to get money, not to hand out money.
Criminals don't care about what is legal, they will find (illegal) substitutes because that's what they do. They don't want to hand out money but they will look for something they can use as a currency. And they will find something, for example rare metals. Or even some other materials that are just rare enough.

But wait, I forgot, you like the criminals that much, that you want to keep them in your community.
Pathetic joke. I don't like the criminals, of course. I just pointed out that the criminals will find another currency if the system would eliminate money. It's sad that you have to resort to such ridiculous jokes just because you have no arguments. You try to suggest that once the money will be eliminated, the criminals will just vanish, and criminality will not be any an issue anymore. Just like Ackuman doesn't want to talk about rights to use because, in his view, "that's not an issue". And then, what's the difference between such a point of view and the promises of Lenin? Lenin also claimed that in communism everything will be fixed automatically, the criminality will simply disappear, the issues won't exist and so on. And now you try to suggest that it's only "evil" people like me that will make the criminals exist. For you, the issues doesn't exist. Very similar with Lenin, isn't it?

Probably you will give them a hand in finding a way how the community, who has no use of money to feed their daily needs, suddenly starts to use money to pay pimps and drug dealers within their confines?
Very disgusting, to suggest that my intention is to help criminals. Anyways, they don't need my help to find how to do their business.

No, I have only quite a bit more then 5 decades on my back and studied it. I bet, you have far more experience, education and insight then I.
No intention to be rude here, but having a certain age doesn't guarantee a certain amount of insight. The insight depends mostly on the effort spent to understand things, not on amount of time spent hating money.

Well, I was born in the 50s, not too long after WWII in Germany. Look at the pictures how Germany looked like a that time. I have seen a little of it life, and my parents were not part of the privileged. Then talk again about not knowing what poverty is.
Germany were always rich, because the biggest value is in unity. Even when they are poor, the Germans are very rich. Because they are united and they help each other. That's why USA needed the help from Stalin and sold half of Europe for that - because it was impossible for the Allies to defeat Germany on themselves. And Germany was so strong because their people were so united and disciplined. After war, in about 10 years they got out of the poverty. Try to see how people live in places like Ukraine, Belarus, etc, and how they keep being poor for decades and centuries, with almost no hope to get a better life, and then we'll talk about real poverty.

And there I was starting to believe you were against RBE? I'm confused now ...
You are so blinded in your hate towards capitalism and money, that you can't conceive that someone can support RBE if they don't hate capitalism. Even more so, you assume that someone must be evil or at least somehow bad if that person doesn't hate money/capitalism.
Quite a fanatic point of view, isn't it?
If you would indeed try to understand that I support RBE, then you would read what I already written above:
"In a functional capitalist system, the people can save money, they can create cooperatives, they can build and grow their own communist communities.."
"In a functional capitalist system, the people can build RBE communities.."

But because you are so blinded by your hate for capitalism/money/property and you believe so strong into magic solutions, you don't really try to understand what people are telling you and you resort to circular reasoning. That's what makes this thread to have quite some redundancy.

Anyways, can I ask you a few things:
Do you agree that the people in Finland, Sweden, Denmark (capitalist countries) enjoy a better life than the people in USA, Italy, France, Portugal, Greece?
If yes, then why do you think that's the case? What exactly Sweden has and it's missing in USA?
Is it possible for USA to implement those missing things that Sweden has?
If a community is going to start an RBE system or a money free system, where do you think there are more chances to start: In places like Sweden/Finland/Denmark of in places like Somalia/Mali/Ivory Coast/North Koreea/Burma/Laos?
Do you think you were never brainwashed and addicted on consumism?
If not, then, what did you do to get rid of the addiction and of the brainwashing?
How do you call the system you are advocating? I understand it's not RBE, but it's a system anti (or at least not) capitalistic, without money, without property, without profit and without speculation.

Thanks

The elimination of money won't simply eliminate speculation. It's the
elimination of the corruption that will eliminate speculation. As long
as there is corruption, there will be speculation, with or without
money. Our capitalism doesn't work simply because the speculation is
allowed (the prices are not based on measurement of a physical constant
but instead they are based on arbitrarily fixed rates).

I guess you don't even realize that speculation does have a use besides just making money for private parties.  It is a stochastic form of protection against shortages.  It does work in some cases, but it usually doesn't, because it's stochastic, and humans are bad at predicting things.

Now, as for corruption being the basis for speculation, this is facile nonsense.  First of all, you've yet to adequately define corruption, and without doing so, using it as a basis for action or logical conclusion is pointless.  What is your definition of corruption, and what separates it from regular economic activity, other than it being offensive to you?

The
elimination of money can't guarantee that there will not be corruption,
and it can't even reduce the corruption. It's only about the government
doing it's job that can reduce the corruption.
Actually, the elimination of money can absolutely reduce corruption.  Corruption, as defined as "aberrant or antisocial economic activity", which covers quite a lot, is related to both max-flow and covert channel problems.  Both of these relate to throughput and bandwidth; reducing the throughput or the bandwidth of the economic medium towards corrupt activities will reduce corruption.
They don't need to use
money in order to use arbitrary fixed rates. They simply charge you 9
tons of wheat for milling 10 tons, instead of charging you 1 ton for
milling 10 tons. That's an arbitrary fixed rate.
All prices are arbitrary, so what's the difference?


I don't know why there is such intense focus here on money.  Money is not the problem, private property is.  Without private property, there is no trade, and without trade, there is no use for money.  It is simply a form of encoding information about an economy in order to facilitate trade.

I'll add to this later, right now I have to go to my job.

Germany were always rich, because the biggest value is in unity. Even when they are poor, the Germans are very rich. Because they are united and they help each other.
You can't be more wrong. You have absolutely no idea what I'm speaking about, and obviously no idea what you are speaking about.
You have no idea what real poverty is then. Check how people lived for decades in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, and then you will see what real poverty is.

I don't waste anymore time on you, you are a lost case. Live happily and in bliss ignorance with your capitalism and money, till everything around you breaks apart.
Look who's talking.. You hate capitalism so much that you don't even bother to understand why some capitalist systems work better than others. If you would try to understand that, you will see that a system needs certain rules to be respected, doesn't matter if they are communist, capitalist, anarchist, RBE-ist or w/e else "ist".
You want to create a community where from your point of view issues do not exist simply because you choose to ignore them. If criminality will exist, it will be because of evil people like me, who "think negative".
"Making yourself fly is hard because everybody has to believe.. but there is always a scumbag who doesn't believe" haha
Mad tv- steven seagal parody , min 1:32


"Money are created in money-making facilities." At least you made me laugh today ... That was shortest and most featureless explanation how money is created I have ever had the privilege to read.
That's is irrelevant where and how money are created. No need to waste time on explaining that.

Are there in this world rural communities where the people live without
money or using very little money (like for example only for paying
mobile phone)?

There is a whole book on this topic: Tony Waters, The
Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture: Life Beneath the Level of the
Marketplace. You can read a small bit of the present results of his research online here. Tony Waters
is Department Chair and Professor of Sociology at California State University,
Chico.

There is another paper which is focused on some of those communities, which can be downloaded here. The editors, Steffen
Abele is a socioeconomist and Director of Research  of the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture, based in Tanzania; Klaus Frohberg is Managing Director of Institute of Agricultural
Development in Central and Eastern Europe in Halle/Germany, and Head of its Department of
Agriculture Policy.

Ackhuman: You have been advocating an anarchy with a resource based
economy. Without coded law you take the semantic stance that there
cannot be crime. You have proposed medical and psychological help for
people who persist in behavior that is harmful / antisocial as opposed
to a punitive justice system. You have suggested ideas based on the
concept of abundance as opposed to scarcity to support the idea that
there is no need for trade and thus no need for money. Am I correct?
For the most part.  It's not just that there will be no crime because of the lack of codified law, there will be a serious reduction in antisocial behavior because of the nonbenefit of theft, hoarding, and the reduction in violence that comes from having a high degree of social equality.  Thanks for reading/joining the discussion.

I think the idea that "non-growable" resources are necessarily scarce is a faulty assumption, Rabert.

If we have abundant energy (which is possible with solar-based [solar, wind, geothermal] energy), and we can use that energy to recycle materials, then as long as the consumption rate (different from the rate of use, mind) is lower than the replenishment rate, the resource should not be considered scarce.

That said, we have a very abundant structural material called basalt fiber, which takes care of most of the need for structural steel.

Thank you, both of you, for clarifying your points of view for me. I was going to wait for Gonzo to reply also before I continue but it seems the conversation is continuing without me so I'll jump back in and continue with the two of you while waiting for him.

@Rabert, I think you've nailed it right there. That is what all this discussion is about.

We just need enough recycling to keep the replenishment rate of a given
material above the consumption/conversion rate of that material.

That's correct. When we can recycle more then we use, we don't have a problem with scarcity with this particular resource. However, we need to decide if we look at this globaly or localy. When I have recycling facility in my community which can recycle more copper from scrap metal then I need in my community, I have no problem. However, when our earth's industries uses 10 times as much copper as all of recycling facilities can recycle, than we need to dig and mine and to use up a limited resource. So in the big picture, and at the end of the day that is the only relevant picture, we can only throw a resource from the list of scarcity when we globaly recycle more then we globaly use up, since we all live on the same planet.

Growth, therefore, comes from an increase in the rate of exploitation.

Interesting perception, and true, from this particular point of view.

The definition for "scarcity" in economics makes "scarce resources" tautological and "abundant resources" nonexistant. 

Well put, and mostly correct. However, there are resources which could be abundant. Space in the universe, for instance. Or the energy our sun can provide. From our point of view both are resources, and both are abundant, even when we take into account hundreds of billions of people and millions of years. Well, theoretically, since both are not accessible to us right now, thus "could be".

It would be a much better idea to have large drums or bottles, from which you fill a personal bottle or growler.

Actually we have chain of shops in Germany selling wines and spirits, oils and vinegars exactly like that. It's quite a rare exception though, probably its much more expensive then the discounter at the other corner.

But that we could and should recycle much more and much more efficient definitly is true. Africa has created a whole industry aroung this, though. They import lots of our waste and recycle it till the last bit. Not very efficient, but very thorough.

Ownership necessarily creates redundancy and production inefficiency

Could you explain that?

Ownership necessarily creates redundancy and production inefficiency

Could you explain that?

Sure, if you don't mind paying a visit to my blog, so I don't have to screw around with formatting the post:
Ownership and its effect on redundancy
Ownership and its limiting effect on production

Here's another important topic on economic efficiency, the fulfilled demand per unit of a resource:
Access and demand fulfillment

Let me know if you need me to explain anything.

@Ackhuman, Nice blog! All those numbers show you've put a lot of time and thought into this. Unfortunately I'm horrible with math. I'm much more of a hands-on sort of engineer. Do you have a plain English source you can share with similar info? Something in layman's terms would go a long way toward helping me (and maybe others) understand where you're coming from.

Now that everyone's had a say I'll give my take on the situation. I'm an engineer, not an economist. I tend to approach things as problems that need to be fixed. When you want to fix a problem the tool to use is problem solving, so here we go (with an oversimplified approach that can fit in a forum post).

Nice blog! All those
numbers show you've put a lot of time and thought into this.
Unfortunately I'm horrible with math. I'm much more of a hands-on sort
of engineer. Do you have a plain English source you can share with
similar info? Something in layman's terms would go a long way toward
helping me (and maybe others) understand where you're coming from.
I'll try and write "translations", though I already tried to do that as I was writing the articles.  I'm not that good at math, so I have a hard time explaining it.  Graph theory is pretty easy, though, or you can just learn what a pointer is in computer science, they work essentially the same way.

The community must generate revenue in order to pay taxes, services like water, internet etc, to pay insurances and retirement for it's members.
The revenue can be generated by selling the extra food produced and also by creating some construction materials (like for example Compressed Earth Blocks).

I think there are two main and big questions:
1. How to start the community in the easiest way possible?
2. How to grow the community organically? (how to make it easy for the people to join, but also to leave when they feel like leaving)

1. Probably you need at least 4 or 5 people in order to start it. They can buy land and start producing food. The activity must produce revenue but also profit. The profit must be invested into preparing the community to accommodate more members when needed but also in order to buy machines for starting other productive activities. The profit can be invested also in technology that can help the community to be more independent.

2. In order to grow the community, it has to do some things like:
- Accept donations. For example I would be interested to support such a community with $10 / month, and probably there are many others like me.
- Accept voluntary work. Maybe some people won't be able to join it permanently, but they might have the time to join for a few weeks or months per year. Such a resource should not be underestimated.
- Simplify jobs and diversify the ways to create revenue. The community should not rely on just one kind of activity. A larger spectrum of activities can attract more people

Other thoughts:
- Implement good communication (forum, wiki) and debate and explain the decisions that are important for the community
- open source design for houses

@Rabert, Good ideas. In the USA there is a special type of corporation called a 501c3 corporation, more commonly referred to as a nonprofit. It is organized like any other corporation and governed by similar laws, but is exempt from some kinds of taxes. It is also able to take donations and volunteers, which I think a for-profit corporation is not.

@Ackhuman:
Ownership and its effect on redundancy

In plain English, because not everyone can access all resources, much more of them must be produced to fulfill the same demand. A good example of this redundancy is the use of cars over trains.  Train systems replace millions of cars and use fractions of the materials and energy, while being faster and more convenient (when civil structure allows, anyway)

Sorry but I think you are wrong in that example. Trains are also a property of someone (you claimed that any kind of property is bad). Governments own those rail companies. But some of the rails are even owned by private companies, or by companies owned by it's very customers (public limited company). So it has nothing to do with being a private or public property.
And the car problem is generated by something else: lifestyle. in USA, UK, Australia, the people enjoy living in houses while in continental Europe many people live in apartment buildings. Living in houses spread on a large area makes an efficient public transportation hard and expensive to implement. Then you need cars. But if you live in an apartment, in the city, it's more convenient to use rails and subways than having your own car. Houses and apartments can both be owned by the people. So it's not about private property, but it's about lifestyle. The (anglo-saxon) lifestyle will generate the need of more private property (cars).

That's  a very good idea. The community should generate enough profit to
be capable to fit more people when they want to join. But it's very
good to also invest profit and effort into delivering some open source
sustainable technologies, therefore having a very good reason to ask for donations and voluntary work.
I
think that waiting for 10,000 people to join is quite unrealistic. Even
5 or 10 people should be enough. And indeed it can even start without
land. You only have to find an activity profitable enough to gather the
people together in a cooperative/company.

I Agree with this. 5-10 people is a realistic number to come together and create something meaningful. Usually you don't see many more than this at the start of a new project anyways. People always wait by the water to see if those brave enough get in are going to run out screaming or not. In this way with 5-10 people working on something others may simply sit and watch for awhile and then later on decide the water is warm enough for them. It should also be easy enough for a small group to afford to buy land should they wish. It would be extremely easy with 10,000, but a number that high would take vastly longer to assemble, and in that time a group of 5 could have easily created something.

Sorry guys, but 5 top 10 people will not work even remotely close to be independent or autarcic. This is demonstrated numerous times across the globe with thousands of such communities trying to meet the ends and pay the bills based on trying to homestead self-supply.

I have done a lot of thinking and calculations to come up with a figure which allows for an independent and autarcic community. The following requirements need to be met as a minimum as my conclusion:

1. It must be big enough to accumulate the funds needed to buy the land needed to provide all the resources needed for food, clothing and energy.
2. It must be big enough to allow for getting rid of insurances, because it is powerful enough in itself to cover for contingencies out of own resources.
3. It must be big enough to allow for care and provision for the elderly and handicapped.
4. It must be big enough to provide all qualifications needed to serve a community.
5. It must be big enough to allow for enough redundancy in all necessary qualifications to run that community independently from outside help.
6. It must be big enough to find diversity when socializing over a long term.
7. It must be big enough to be able to fight off legal or physical attacks.
8. It cannot be that big, that the individual person can hide behind anonymity of masses.

If you suggest a size for such a community, check against this list. If you don't meet one of its points with your suggested size, please explain how you intend to maintain independence and autarcy over a timeframe of lets say 100 years.

It is unrealistic to find 10,000 people when you want to find them tomorrow. But it could become realistic when you try to find them over a time period of, say, 10 years, and can promote your project to a community of, say, 1 billion people. It might work with 8,000 as well, probably even with 5,000, when you find a cheap patch of land big enough to provide all the resources 5,000 need, but less, and you will run into difficulties with some of the above mentioned points. And, take into account, I'm talking about people, not households. 10,000 means approx 3,000 families or less, including their children and probably other relatives being part of that household, like grandparents for instance.