From: rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Rhetoric: The End of Morality in Society (?)
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:59:33 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

(Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
> This is preposterous if for no other reason than the inevitable 
> corruption in the body that regulates the redistribution of the
> 'tax' money.  

  "Corruption is no more inevitable here than in any other bureaucratic
system. The one we have now is cretainly not without its corruption. In 
fact I believe that there would be less corruption in a society based
around a system like the one I propose. Everyone is on the same boat,
nobody is disadvantaged, so there is (should be) less resentment and hence
less temptation to be corrupt. My argument isn't necessarily true, but
neither is corruption inevitable."

> If you think that there would not still be rich people and that 
> the poor would not work for them to survive, you are displaying
> an amazing amount of naivete.  I do not care what system you 
> propose, ambitious men and women will climb to the top of
> it and collect wealth.  Other men and women will be content
> to sit at the bottom and cry about their lot.
> 
  "True. The ambitious will win. Those who are prepared to work for their
own good, by doing what other people want (you can't sell it if noone wants
it) will be better off than those who do little or nothing. That, I think
most people will agree, is how it should be. However, if the rich people
then decide to sit on what they have and not do anything with it they will
have to pay for it still. They are entitled to an equal share, which they
can use to live out their days buying non-resource-intensive things with
the accumulated cash if they wish. If they want to sit on more than their
share of resources though, their cash will quickly run out."

  Stumpy picks up the soapboxes that have so far accumulated and tosses
them onto the heap.
  "I wonder if Galadin, or Birith or our resident dark elf or someone else 
versed in magic would care to light this for us? Alternatively, I wonder if
Mike has a match?"

> Who establishes the 'fair, market adjusted rent'?  I think you have
> no idea at all how fundamentally impossible it is to be 'fair'.
> You just can't do it.  Fairness has no meaning in the world.

  Stumpy resists the temptation to feign incomprehension at the uses of the
concept 'fairness' and procedes to address the point.
  "The fair market rent is determined by the average value placed on the
resource by everyone. That's what the lists do, determine the fair market
rent. Those who value a resource more highly than average will control
their share themselves. Those who value it less will take the
compensation."
  Stumpy considers what he has said and the growing pile of soapboxes under
his feet. "Somehow I doubt," he steps down off the boxes "that this will
satisfactorily answer your objection," he begins hurling boxes on the
bonfire, "but I've already been talking too long."
-- 
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh | Brought to you from the bottom of the world
rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz  | both topographically and socio-politically.
+64 7 855 4406        | Whatever happened to Godzone?
    SnailMail: 95 Fairfield Rd, Hamilton, Aotearoa (New Zealand)