> > > So we're really not done with airplanes. Good. Now, do you
> > > all want to tell me who you're going to coerce, and how, in
> > > order to get the airplanes, steel plowshares, and so forth?
> >
> > Both sides of this debate seem to accept the premise that people
> > will only do socially useful labor if they are coerced
>
> Actually, as far as I can tell, Gordon emphatically doesn't accept that
> premise and wants to have someone prove it him, i.e., that airplanes can't
> get built without coercion
I've missed chunks of this discussion because AOL deep-sixes my e-mail sometimes (I know, I know, I should deep-six AOL). Anyway, part of what I'm trying to say is that in a future society in which production is for use and not for profit, they will still be building airplanes (unless we're going back to hunter-gatherer-land). There will be a part of the airplane plant where they're designing the mechanism that raises and lowers the ailerons. That part of the plant will be headed up by an experienced person who has designed lots of airplane parts before, who will have some less experienced people working under her. The head of the aileron department will look at the designs of the less-experienced engineers and say, variously, "good idea!" or "interesting, but did you think of this...?" or "you're full of shit." If the head of the aileron department is a good manager, she will listen and argue it out when the junior engineer says "Hey, I'm NOT full of shit, look at this..."
The head of the aileron department will in turn report to a project manager of some sort...
I think that kind of hierarchy will always be with us. Are you instead going to form an "airplane affinity group?" Blabbermouths with iron butts would wear down everyone else :-)
Jacob C.