>Being obligated to picket duties is an obligation of a different sort than that of parecon where I literally have to discuss with others how many pairs of underwear I want and to possibly have to justify my desires to others satisfaction.
Even as specified by A&H you don't have to discuss let alone justify. Individual consumption requests are submitted via computer and may be submitted anonymously. No consumption requests of something actually produced, justified by income may be turned down. They do include as part of the process the right to discuss via e-mail individual consumption requests, but the (probably anonymous) consumer is free to ignore the discussion. Such discussion is not required by their system, and has always struck me as absurd. I see no reason why discussion of individual consumption justified by work, should be part of the iterative planning process. If you want to blow your entire consumption list on single malt scotch, and hookers (assuming you can find someone willing to assume the role of hooker) that is your decision.
>It's a moneyless society where you get a govt issued ID card that keeps track of your work and remunerates according. There is no way to opt out
By opt out, do you mean the right of an able person to purchase consumer goods without working?
> In my humble opinion the free rider problem is not as great an issue as most people believe. It's just a leftover bit of Calvinist thinking that most people, myself included, haven't shaken completely. Everyone should have shelter and food whether they choose to work or not. You might be surprised by how few people would be willing to be a burden to everyone else. People will contribute if they don't feel alienated
I guess that IS what you mean. First of all I don't think you need let people who refuse to work starve -- or be homeless, but I think if an able person is not willing to work you do not need to provide them with more than a minimal share of social output either. Under Parecon everyone is entitled to their share of collective consumption - health care, education and such. I guess if you have an able person who refuses to work (Maybe on some sort of political principle that work should be made an eternal joyous dance) you can add to this some really basic food, clothing and shelter.
But there is reason to worry about the free rider problem. People will make a transition from capitalist society to some other (hopefully better) one. I don't care how much you "build the new within the shell of the old". The first generation under socialism or "anarchist utopia" will have been warped by living under capitalism. Old attitudes will not disappear in a day.
And free riding is not just a problem of people refusing to work. It is also a problem of someone deciding that since they write fine poetry, they should never have to sweep a floor.
In addition, if free riding is rewarded, it is going to be harder for those who do not free ride not to feel alienated and turn to free riding themselves.
Also a free rider tends to end up with an advantage in collective decision making - having more energy than someone who attends after a days work, and more time to prepare.. You could end up with a self reinforcing cycle that transforms the system back into capitalism or into some other type of tyranny.