>>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>>
>>>However, I
>>>don't think free-riding is one of the more prominent
>>>problems we have,
>>
>>It's hard to know what planet you live on. I think it's absolutely
>>pervasive
>>in almost every human society, and this is empirically observable.
>>Moreover
>>it is to be expected: most people would rather have others do the hard
>>stuff
>>and want to make sure taht they get theirs. Won't that be true under
>>anarchism?
>
>Stare decisis trumps all, eh? This seems a defeatist view of the human
>prospect. Basically, you're saying that the Iron Law of Oligarchy *is* an
>iron law -- that there will always be corrupt, self-serving elites that
>breed widespread social cyncism and encourage less-fortunates to try to
>game
>the system themselves. I think human social character is more mutable than
>that -- that a combination of material factors (technological advance) and
>idealistic ones (cultivation of some sort of transcendental awareness)
>could
>make labor in general less onerous and encourage people to share willingly
>in doing unpleasant but necessary work that benefits all.
>
>Carl
I'm perfectly willing to agree with the right set of incentives, people's motivations may change. They have done so in the past. However, I will not be satisfied with vague handwaving like this, and the promise that under anarchy or the dictatorship of the proletariat or whatever we will all love one another and work hard and cheerfully for the common weal. In order to argue plausibly that the motivations will be different, you have to describe what it is about the specific set of incentives in place that creates the good behavior.
jks
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com