You're not looking below the surface, you're completely ignoring what parecon proposes and attacking a straw man.
Now, if you were to argue that although Parecon proposes BJCs, any attempt to implement it _must inevitably decay into_ the kind of tokenism you describe above, _that_ would be looking below the surface. Why aren't you doing this? It would be much more interesting, and you wouldn't be stuck with a fool's argument as you are now.
Sadly, that's not what you've done here. Rather than showing why Parecon won't work you continue to pretend that the theory itself is something it ain't.
There's a whole range of objections to Parecon that actually make sense and would take some brains to refute, but for some reason nobody ever brings them up.
So get back to me when you wanna take this discussion seriously, I've got more Hashek to read.
>Yes, your suggestion about getting up some stickers promoting tipping is
one of the things I find offensive.
Promoting tipping not as an ideal economic arrangement but as a preferable option to not tipping in a system where people depend on tipping, where tipping already exists, where tipping isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
In the same way, promoting an increase in the minimum wage is not the same as promoting the wage system. Duh.
>>would you care to respond now?
>
>OK, let me put it another way, since the first try went over your head.
>
Oh gee bill you blew it. Bye bye.