No problem, thanks for the discussion.
Well, obviously labour vouchers wouldn't be literal vouchers in this day and age, that's just their original name, they would take the form of a cashless card or similar thing. Basically the thing that makes them different from money is that you can't trade them with other people, only with the state/centrally planned economy. For example, if you are at the beach and you want a cone, you'll just swipe your card at the ice cream stall and that will be recorded like with a debit card. There's no way to go in and send vouchers to other people directly, except perhaps in some kind of authorised way (ie. it's possible to go through a middleman if you want to sell your car to the neighbour or whatever, or maybe you could just sell your excess stuff back to the state).
Anyway, in addition, it's possible that labour vouchers might have an expiration date as well, or maybe not, but the intention behind that is to encourage people to live to the fullest. For example, in capitalism, if a band you really like comes to the city, but tickets cost $150, you might think, well, that's money I should really put into my retirement, so you will stuff the money in savings or use it for rent instead, and you'll be sad that you didn't go to the show. If labour vouchers expired, it would let you think like, "well, why shouldn't I go if I want to?". But other people think that them expiring would punish people who are thrifty too much, so it's an open question I guess.
>Eventually, the masses will have divergent interests from the "ministers", this is inevitable. For example; let's say the majority keeps voting for policies that might over-populate an area and negatively affect infrastructure and resources, what then? What if they are dissatisfied with the dividends they receive?
I don't think it's really inevitable, I mean if lots of people want to move to say, socialist New York, is that a big problem? Under socialism, there would be omnipresent public transport to reduce traffic issues, and there wouldn't be any more apartments laying empty for investment purposes or holiday homes. If there's still no space in the city, the city will simply have to grow, either outwards or upwards. Personally I think the future of humanity is hyper-urban anyway.
will respond to rest later.
Anonymous 01/27/20 (Mon) 17:11:37 No.50
Yeah, the future is hyper-urban, but that was just one example. My point is that, realistically, the interests (any interest) of the State will clash with the general population, it's just an undeniable fact of life. Democracy happens in degree, eventually a Socialist state will have to display its authority, further demonstrating the public/private false dichotomy is merely a socially constructed illusion.