This is just such a ridiculous notion if you consider it for even one moment.
Even in the best technological scenario where you live in the world of fully-automated-luxury-communism, what does it actually mean for 'everyone' to have 'equal access to everything'?
Does everyone have their own private jet?
Does everyone have their own yacht?
Does everyone have a house as big and beautiful as they desire?
This is obviously impossible, because there simply isn't the means or resources to do it. Worse, even if there was, what was seen as a 'big' house would simply get bigger as humans inherently compete to one-up eachother.
A communist system HAS TO assign quotas to the amount of resources people are allowed to consume. But then what happens?
Then you have some genius scientist who can't do research because it'll exceed their quota. You have the very systems that provide resources hamstrung by the limits imposed on the people who run them.
So you have to make exceptions. And to that you need to more beureaucracy. And pretty soon you have class of individuals who not only have access to more than everyone else, but get to decide what everyone else has access to, and can even give themselves more. All you've done is create an even more rigid system with even less chance of social mobility.
You end up with governers and industry bosses living in mansions and penthouses while the proles live in pods and shacks. It's even WORSE than the system you tried to replace!
He almost certainly wants Star Trek "post-scarcity" which isn't really post-scarcity because it's not like everyone who wants to is able to fly around the quadrant in their own personal warp-capable starship or settle their own planet. Or have a house with a real view of the real Golden Gate Bridge, for that matter.
Show an 18th century peasant the tent cities in Seattle, San Francisco, or Portland and they'd think we were a "post-scarcity" society. Yet somehow we don't think we are. Funny how that works.
This is just such a ridiculous notion if you consider it for even one moment.
Even in the best technological scenario where you live in the world of fully-automated-luxury-communism, what does it actually mean for 'everyone' to have 'equal access to everything'?
Does everyone have their own private jet? Does everyone have their own yacht? Does everyone have a house as big and beautiful as they desire?
This is obviously impossible, because there simply isn't the means or resources to do it. Worse, even if there was, what was seen as a 'big' house would simply get bigger as humans inherently compete to one-up eachother.
A communist system HAS TO assign quotas to the amount of resources people are allowed to consume. But then what happens? Then you have some genius scientist who can't do research because it'll exceed their quota. You have the very systems that provide resources hamstrung by the limits imposed on the people who run them. So you have to make exceptions. And to that you need to more beureaucracy. And pretty soon you have class of individuals who not only have access to more than everyone else, but get to decide what everyone else has access to, and can even give themselves more. All you've done is create an even more rigid system with even less chance of social mobility.
You end up with governers and industry bosses living in mansions and penthouses while the proles live in pods and shacks. It's even WORSE than the system you tried to replace!
He almost certainly wants Star Trek "post-scarcity" which isn't really post-scarcity because it's not like everyone who wants to is able to fly around the quadrant in their own personal warp-capable starship or settle their own planet. Or have a house with a real view of the real Golden Gate Bridge, for that matter.
Show an 18th century peasant the tent cities in Seattle, San Francisco, or Portland and they'd think we were a "post-scarcity" society. Yet somehow we don't think we are. Funny how that works.