Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: alt....
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 8 Nov 92 13:39:35 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> > denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:
> >> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >> > denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:
> >> >> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
> > 
> > you use inequality as though it were a dirty word, conveniently 
> > forgetting that no two people are identical. individuals have 
> > different priorities, and different potentials. there is no
> > way to change that.
> 
> Of course people have different abilities and qualities. However 
> any just community should harness these differences rather than 
> exploit them. People should be rewarded for contributing their all, 
> whatever that might be. Sure its hard to judge and may never be 
> attainable in practice but it seems a good goal.

what if their all is of no use to the community? then that person
becomes a useless member, consuming resources but providing nothing
in return. we cannot rely on human nature to contribute without
some sort of incentive. by providing for needs and not allowing
anyone to progress beyond a basic level of subsistance you would
be removing all incentive other than self-satisfaction.

> >> You clearly arent living in the same world as myself. Most people
> >> work to survive - fair returns have nothing to do with it. The 
> >> bosses/market decides what is "fair".
> > 
> > what's so bad about that? i'd rather have what is "fair" decided 
> > by my peers (the "market") and be able to make the same sort of 
> > decision myself than be forced into -your- definition of what is 
> > "fair".
> 
> I wouldn't mind ones worth being decided by one peers - or fellow 
> community members - in fact I think that is the ideal. However "the 
> market" certainly doesnt represent the views of my peers, but 
> rather those of capital.

ahh. here is a basic point of contention. i believe the market -does-
represent the views of my peers. there is no such thing as monolithic
blocks of "capital" and "labor". the middle class (at least in the US)
is too large for that. economics is not a simple matter of categories.
individuals occur at all levels and are connected by a vast web of
transactions.

> For example health care workers are grossly exploited by the 
> current system as the people who enter such professions tend to be 
> more caring and are not prepared to strike as this would primarily 
> hurt the people that they care for. I've yet to be convinced that 
> people working in the city do anything useful at all! 

what do you mean "health care workers"? do you suggest that doctors
do not make enough money or are too "caring" to take care of themselves?
or are you only talking about nurses and the like, lumping doctors
in with the "capital" class of society 'cause they generally have money?
please provide examples of this "gross exploitation".

> Also why do higher paid jobs tend to be more 
> interesting/stimulating and less dangerous and physically 
> demanding. Shouldnt it be the other way round? I cant remember ever 
> being asked if I wanted the chairperson of an arms manufacturer to 
> be paid several orders of magnitude more than a garbage collector - 
> I know whose services I could more easily do without! 

-you- could do without arms manufacturers, but that is obviously not
how your peers feel. after all, they voted in a government that wants
arms, and taxes you to buy them. apparently, people think that the 
manufacture of arms is a high-value occupation. you want to change things?
start there, with individuals. i have no problem with anyone -convincing-
people to change their priorities. it's the use of force by government
to solve a problem that was (in part) government created that upsets
me.

> > for what reason? because you say so? what's the community's 
> > motivation? if my potential is making the best damn mud-pies in 
> > the whole world should i be payed $40,000 a year for doing so?
> 
> Isnt the joy of making the best mud-pies in the world reward 
> enough, that and the respect and admiration of the community in 
> which you live, plus of course sufficient resources to live.

mud-pies do not benefit the community in any way. therefore, the
"sufficient resources" i am receiving represent a drag on the
community. someone else is paying for the respect i get. if others
realize that they can be rewarded for a useless function then
they too will turn away from useful ones. the community will end up 
at a much lower average of production than ever.

a perfect example of this was the old Soviet Union. when garbage
collectors get payed as much as doctors or PhDs, what's the point
of spending so much time as a student? and you will notice that
when the USSR opened up the educated were the first to flee the
country. doesn't sound good for the community to me.

> > in order to give to a few you must take from many. that doesn't 
> > seem very egalitarian to me. of course, you probably have some 
> > grand scheme in which everyone will get everything and nobody 
> > will be imposed upon... pull t'other one. 's got bells on it.
> 
> Give to those that need, take from those who dont. (Maybe the US is
> different but in the UK there are far fewer rich than poor!)

and why are the rich rich? there are honest ways to gain wealth. if 
one knows that any wealth you gain will be summarily taken away, 
what's the use of working to achieve it?

> > what? people are going to pay me to make mud-pies out of the 
> > goodness of their hearts? again, i doubt it. and if they don't 
> > the only way you're going to get them to "reward me for achieving 
> > my potential" is by force.
> 
> Why not? Do you have no feeling of community or commradeship?

-my- feeling of community or comradship? i'm making mud-pies, 
remember? an essentially useless function in society! of -course-
i have no feelings of community or comradship. after all, i'm
draining resources from elements of the community that do provide 
something. and yet you suggest that i should still get rewarded for 
it.

> > people do not "deserve" equal rewards simply for existing. since 
> > we are, by our very nature, different the only way to equalize 
> > everyone is to take from those who have more to give to those who 
> > have less. when there is no longer anyone to take from -everyone- 
> > ends up at the bottom of the potential curve.
> 
> but also at the top!

name me one system where this has happened.

> by the way as you seem keen on Monty Python maybe you should look 
> out for any articles by  Terry Jones - very illuminating!

Monty Python provides me with comedy. if their political views are
anything like your own they provide me with even more comedy
than i realized.

you obviously have never read "Harrison Bergeron" (sp?) by Kurt 
Vonnegut. it's an amusing little tale that illustrates my point 
exactly. by taking from the "rich" you allow the mud-pie makers and 
garbage collectors of the world to prosper at the expense of the 
scientists and doctors.

jason "still the anti Gladys Moon-Glampers" steiner

--
  "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian