>>It really is time for you to acknowledge that money alone, or the
>>threat of starvation and homelessness, is far from the only form of
>>"incentive".
>
>
>One reason I don't like to participate in this debate is that my
>interlocutors do not engage my views, but persist in debating some
>imaginary pro-capitalit. I support a universal right to economic
>security. I oppose a threat of homelessness and starvatuion as a
>negaive incentive. You would know this if you read what I have said
>even this exchange.
No, this is a genuine misunderstanding.
I had understood your position to be that income would be conditional on work. Either I was mistaken in this, in which case I am debating an imaginary position you don't hold, or perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. By "universal right to economic security", I meant also unconditional economic security, in particular not conditional on what, if any, work one engages in. I see that I didn't make that explicit.
> As I explained yesterday to Yoshie, a worker self-managed market
>socialism woukd have no unemployment that was not frictional. The
>government would act as the employer of last resort. You stop
>pretending I'm Ayn Rand, and maybe we can communicate with some
>point. I'ma socialist, capice? A right-wing, liberal democratic
>sort of socialist, but a socialist. OK jks.
I accept that. No offense meant.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020707/4c98dfb5/attachment.htm>