.. 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.
Oh, like Marx, I do hold this, for those able to work. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." But for me the reason isn't a matter of negative incentives. It's justice. I don't think that citizens of the socialist commonwealth should be allowed to exploit other citizens by loafing while others work for them. I don't think they'd tolerate that, or that the commonwealth would survive as a socialist one if that sort of self-indulgence were permitted. Reciprocity is important: you have to give in order to get. So I'd see the state guarantee a place at a cooperative for all alble-bodied persons, or failing that a government job. Those unable to work would be decently provided for. .
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com