<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: "Punishment"? Re: Centralization</title></head><body> <div>At 4:42 AM +0000 7/7/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite>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".</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> <br> 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.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>No, this is a genuine misunderstanding.</div> <div><br></div> <div>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<u> unconditional</u> economic security, in particular not conditional on what, if any, work one engages in. I see that I didn't make that explicit.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> 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.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I accept that. No offense meant.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> </body> </html>