From: denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: alt....
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:12:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov6.035525.10999@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, 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:
>> >> 
>> >> Why should the poor rely on charity? A touch demeaning dont you 
>> >> think. How can one justify vast differences in income?
>> > 
>> > we might as well ask how can we we can expect there -not- to be 
>> > vast differences in income. ever heard the old adage that life 
>> > isn't fair? at -no- time in history have there not been classes 
>> > and differences in income. attempts at solving this "problem" have
>> > failed miserably or accentuated the differences.
>> 
>> Well I suppose we might as well give up then, and continue with the 
>> "best-of-all-possible-worlds" that we live in today. Gross 
>> inequality is obviously a "fact of life". My appologies for even 
>> suggesting that change is possible.
> 
> 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.


> 
>> >> > The person who deserves the bread is the person who worked for 
>> >> > it.  Period.
>> >> 
>> >> Nope. The person who deserves the bread is the person who needs 
>> >> it. Period.
>> > 
>> > again, human society has never operated this way. all attempts at
>> > forcing it too have only succeeded in taking the bread away from
>> > everyone.
>>                  
>> 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

pardon!
 
> 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. 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! 

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! 


> 
>> >> but there's the rub. Present western society isnt equitable. The 
>> >> skills society/marketplace deems as useful vary from time to 
>> >> time - at present intellectual attributes are valued more highly 
>> >> than physical skills, but this is a fairly recent phenomenon. 
>> >> People should be rewarded for achieving their potential, 
>> >> whatever that may be.
>> > 
>> > and who will reward them? the state?
>> 
>> The community in which they live.
> 
> 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.


> 
>> Pardon me for aspiring to a more egalitarian future.
> 
> 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!)


>> > society is nothing more than the interaction of individuals. 
>> > coercing individuals to interact according to some social ideal 
>> > about non-existant "baser instincts" is doomed to failure.
>> 
>> Who mentioned coercion? 
> 
> 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?

> 
> 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!

> 
> jason "the anti Gladys Moon-Glampers" steiner
> 
> --

iain

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