From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Utopia (was Re: mandatory service)
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Aug12.033954.28682@reed.edu>
	<ROBERTL.92Aug11210033@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.122024.26409@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:24:43

In article <1992Aug12.122024.26409@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

   In article <ROBERTL.92Aug11210033@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
   robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper) writes:

   >That is, those who help out by doing some public service are
   >thereby entitled to significantly larger transfer payments
   >from the state if and when needed.

   I think people should get from the state only what they
   need, and that only if need implies having no other means of
   getting it.  I don't think this transfer should depend on
   anything other than being a citizen.

How is need to be defined?

Also, there are ways for people to reduce their chances of becoming
needy, such as saving up for retirement and taking care of their
health.  It seems such considerations are irrelevant in your proposal.
Why not at least encourage saving up for retirement?

   >Transfer payments to people able to do public service who
   >have choosen not to would be reduced or eliminated.

   I think it should go about like this:  

   [...]

   *Every* person who was physically/mentally able would do
   this (so it's not indentured service after all, it's only a
   universal societal norm).  Now you're 30.

Hmph.  A distinction without a difference indeed.  For certain
cultures slavery was a universal societal norm.

Also, ability is just as difficult to pin down as need.

   At this point you choose a career (not earlier).  Careers
   might include any or all of (voluntary) professional
   military work, parenting, or anything else.  If you need
   more training (normally you would), you work for to pay for
   it out of your own pocket.  Now you're 35 and ready to live
   a decent life.

?!  And I thought waiting till I get out of grad school to "have a
life" was bad.

It would be interesting to know what 20 years of general education
could accomplish (as long as it's flexible enough to accomodate
different learning paces while maintaining high standards for
graduates).  It might even close the gap between the two cultures.

   Since everyone would have basic housing, food, physical
   security, and health care heavily subsidized by the state,
   you will expect to pay very high taxes on your income from
   age 35 to age 70.

This assumes people will not attempt to beat the system by avoiding
work.  A dubious assumption.

   [...]

   Utopia is so simple, if you work at it!  :-) It's all a
   matter of giving and getting; our trouble is we want to do
   the getting without doing the giving.  Sorry, can't work
   that way, gotta give, and more than most people think.

My purpose wasn't just to snipe at Jess's proposal --- even though it
is, like all utopias, a tempting target.

Instead I want to emphasize that Jess's utopia, the communist utopia,
the libertarian utopia, the socialist utopia, the benevolent dictator
utopia and any others I've forgotten all fail for the same reason ---
they ignore human nature.  

Utopias that feature little or no government fail because there is no
check on the power an evil, greedy or power mad citizen may amass and
use. 

Utopias that feature a massive government fail because state power on
such a scale will inevitably lead to widespread corruption of the
government.

It is necessary to do more than just make sure the budget balances for
a utopian vision to become real --- the utopian vision must not ignore
what appear to be fundamental truths about human nature.

- Bob