It's a good thought exercise, though. No reason to give it up for anything other than progressing the idea further.
I might be too much of a capitalist (or a narcissist) to fully grasp the concept of consumption without incentive to produce. I love chatting with strangers, drinking, playing D&D, reading history books, traveling. I HATE lawnwork. I hate driving. I hate dealing with stupid people. Not sure how much production I would provide by reading history books and slaying imaginary orcs, even though I am a GREAT slayer of orcs!). So, therefore I wouldn't have much value to anyone, so I wouldn't be able to access the books I would want to read.
So, I would have to go do things I don't like that are more productive and have more value, so I CAN do what I love. Which brings us full circle back to working crap jobs you hate! But, over the course of time, those with more empathy, with a more giving personality, would garner more value.
Often, though, value as we know it revolves(at least partially, although there are always outliers) around scarcity - the more scarce the resource, the higher the value. So, we need to work on that issue as well. Not everyone can do mental jobs to perform tasks such as rebuilding machines, or programming an AI or designing pleasing architectural spaces, or even doing jobs requiring large strength or dexterity such as lifting objects carefully or animal control or surgery or stone cutting or carving. These jobs are scarce due to the number of people who can actually perform them.
Finally, we want to look at "take what you want" and how we stop people from simply taking what they want, credits/value be damned. Or getting mad, and beating up a high value person and making them a non-person or a disabled person, simply because that is what they like doing (think murder hobos or warlords in outlaw areas or Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest.)
Anyways, I am really glad you posted this - I am having an enjoyable time thinking about this. Thanks!
Ah, but the incentive to produce is that you cannot partake if you do not produce and you can consume more if you produce more. It's not socialism or communism. It's a way to recreate the incentives of capitalism without the corruptive influence of tangible value.
I mean, yeah, most people would prefer to do nothing "work related" but they do because they know they have to pay the bills. But if electricity costs nothing (but the electricity folks earn by producing)... and same thing for other utilities, then the standard of living for those who can produce and consume goes up because their attention and efforts are not on making money as much as producing. So if you don't produce, you can't have the house or apartment or whatever to consume the electricity or water (or whatever). So the costs of living actually go down while not really affecting very much the ability to produce (assuming someone wants to work in utilities).
So if you don't have anything in your interests that you think you could produce in (maybe you're an artist in an artist community or you just really want to read books all your life or perhaps be an ascetic), I'm not sure there's an answer for you. No system so far is perfect and my idea is to remove the "bad things" money can do. No more money in politics, for example. No more buying a vote or a bill to be passed and so on. This is a great thing to think on. Maybe there can be exceptions for, say, religious organization members in that if they're an ascetic, they get an allowance per the group, organization, church, sect, whatever they ascribe to. If you have no skill of worth for production, you get to... I don't know, go to school, maybe? Students aren't intended to produce anything while they're students, right? So that's part of going to school. <sigh> So many details to think about.
I'm intrigued to note that, at least on the surface, you have some kind of "money equates with law" association. "What's to stop someone from liking murder" and so forth. It poses an interesting question that should not be quickly discarded: does law proceed from money? Certainly in today's politics but what about on a more fundamental level? If it does, would this worldwide "lack of money" (or "produce to consume", if you prefer) system initiate a kind of global government? That's certainly worth thinking about, yes?
It's not a credit thing. It's not money. It's not cashless money. That implies a tradeable thing with value. That's what we want to get away from. You have a limit of "value" that you can consume based on what you contribute. So that should answer a lot of the questions, right?
I suppose you could allow it to roll over and "save". If you're living below your means, why shouldn't you do that? If you live below your allotment for 5 years, maybe you're consumer level is worth more. So maybe you can "afford" that house in a better neighborhood. tangible things suddenly don't have a value on their own so why would a house cost anything? It's not the materials that have value as much as the person's time and ability. So it's not the building of the house that costs you but rather the features of it. And anything that can be mass produced by machines might have less value, right? But then again, to prevent hoarding, most automated positions would be "banned". It lets everyone do whatever it is they really want to do. So that janitor can suddenly build houses because that's what he wants to do and that introverted lady down the street can take the janitor job because it satisfies her needs. I don't know, something about that seems off, maybe the value of those jobs. Janitorial work is critically important in, say, a school or office but it pays so little. How do you maintain value equality between positions without creating a standards of living gap? <sigh>
Opening a business... hmmm.I hadn't thought much of that yet. I honestly don't know. Something more to think about! I mean, you're contributing but you need starter material. Maybe raw materials "cost" nothing and you're "paying" for someone's time. So if you open a business, it should be a high value business, right? Instead of some little kiosk "selling" plastic trinkets from China? I mean, there should be nothing to stop you from opening a business but at some point, there needs to be a mechanic that prevents "useless" value from being created while allowing people to do what makes them truly happy. As an example, if I won $5 million tomorrow, I'd probably still go into work for a while, at least part time. Something to do to keep me from being lazy or something.
Ugh, maybe the idea is just not workable. Or maybe I don't know enough about the things needed to define these issues and solutions.