Sorry, John, I misinterpreted your statements; I thought you were advocating equal shares of material goods for all, i.e., that everyone gets the same amount of value of stuff. It turns out that you accept something like Marx's needs principle ("To each according to his needs"), which means nonequal shares.
Perhaps each gets equal consideration, but that is very different from equal shares. You follow Albert & Hahnel in thinking that the needs principle can be realized under scarcity. Marx thought not, but that is neither here nor there.
At any rate, as far as people being able, psychologically, to live with the needs principle and the inequality (as well as the eqaulity) that accompanies it, you and I have no disagreement that they can. Actually I am more optimistic than you, I think we could live with it right now, it wouldn't take any getting used to.
Whether Albert & Hahnel have presented a desiriable or feasible model for a post-capitalist society is something I do not care to discuss. I will confess, however, to being lacking in vision. I'm the Hayekian, after all, so I'm moderately pessimistic about the limitations on human transformation.
jks
--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > The problem with unequal entitlement to
> resources is
> > > that it creates anger and resentment.
> >
> >I don't know what country you live in. I live on
> where
> >the poor defend the right of the rich to the money
> >they'sve "made."
>
> I see anger and resentment around me everyday.
> People may not articulate
> why they feel this way very well at times but to
> imagine that these issues
> do not feature into their dissatisfaction seems
> pretty divorced from
> reality to me.
>
> > Only by allowing ever person on the planet the
> exact same
> > > "slice of the pie" will we ever be able to
> escape from this.
> >
> >This is absurd. Marx's critique of the point
> stands:
> >if you are talk about right or justice, it isn't
> fair
> >to give those who don't contribute as much (though
> >they could) the same as those who contribute more,
> and
> >if we could move beyond justice into abundance,
> which
> >Marx thought we could but you don't. we'd have to
> >recognize that people need (and want) different
> things
> >and amounts. I don't need and couldn't use a
> Steinway,
> >most people wouldn't be interested in a large
> library
> >of philosophy books, but I would; sick people need
> >medical carte taht healthy people don't. Isn't this
> >obvious?
>
> It is not absurd at all. I did not however
> articulate my position as
> carefully as I could have. I am discussing a
> hypothetically just society. I
> am operating under the assumption that everyone
> would have equal access to
> whatever healthcare needs they have in such a
> society. Needs would be
> accounted for first then wants. The distribution of
> the "shares of the pie"
> devoted to filling wants would be equal. I think
> this is obvious for any
> such system to be considered just but I can see how
> without it being
> spelled out explicitly and your not knowing me
> personally it might not be
> as obvious in this post as I assumed. I would have
> thought past posts of
> mine would have made spelling it out unnecessary.
>
> Far from absurd it is immanently fair. Contribution
> doesn't mean anything.
> In order to be ensure maximum freedom and justice
> equal distribution of all
> none necessities is required. A very simplified way
> to conceive of it is to
> imagine that all income is collected as tax. Once
> all basic needs as
> defined by society are met the surplus is
> distributed equally to all. There
> will always be disagreements about what constitute
> needs but such a system
> is technologically feasible. I don't give a damn if
> Marx, Karl or Groucho,
> thinks contribution counts for anything, it doesn't.
> Not if you want true
> freedom and justice equally for all members of
> society.
>
> > > The proceeding generation, raised to believe
> equal entitlement is a
> > birthright
> > > and not the product of how intelligent,
> beautiful, strong, or motivated
> > > they are will accept it without a problem.
> >
> >Even ifd taht si true,w hicH I do not believe for a
> >second, it would be a dumb idea, In fact it is an
> >incoherent one There is no common denomibator,
> unless
> >you have money and market. I don't mind money and
> >markets, buty as many here will point out, they
> >guarantee inequality. Without a common denomibator,
> >what makes your Steinway equal to my philosophy
> books
> >or someone else's health car?
>
> Nothing incoherent about it. Maybe you lack the
> vision necessary to see it
> clearly however. Again to overly simplify imagine
> Albert and Hahnels ideas
> about remuneration only tweak it to get rid of the
> unequal distribution
> based on time worked or effort expended. Most of
> their ideas are very
> coherently laid out. You can disagree about the
> desirability but not the
> coherency of the idea. If you use your shares of the
> pie to buy a piano or
> philosophy books or sex toys makes no difference.
>
> >Actually it seems to me, further, taht it is you
> who
> >have the darl view of human nature. I think that if
> >everyone has enough for a cushy life, no one much
> will
> >really care if others have in some sense "more."
> You
> >imagine that under even ideal circumstances, people
> >will consumed by envy and calculating to the
> nearest
> >unit of whatever the measure of wealth is whether
> >someone else might have a hair more than they.
> Don't
> >you think that people can be better than that?
>
> >jks
>
> Van Parijs essay concerning feeding surfers will go
> further toward
> explaining the benefits of separating work from
> income than I can in an
> email. I think he suffers from the same flaw Hahnel
> and Michael do in their
> slavish insistence that unless there is a stick to
> accompany the carrot
> society cannot function however. I disagree but I am
> not overly concerned
> by the free-rider issue that so many others are. It
> is a Calvinistic tenet
> that self-indulgence is destructive and work
> redemptive and too many
> theories about remunerative justice seem to me
> unable to fully escape the
> influences of this thinking. This is a dysfunctional
> outlook in my opinion
> and adhering to it even a "little bit" has serious
> negative consequences.
> Again it is a bit much to try to explain in an email
> forum of this nature.
> It is not about whether people are consumed by envy.
> I doubt they will be
> consumed by it but it will create more unhappiness
> than is necessary,
> optimal, or desirable. It is about creating a
> society that is as free and
> just as is maximally possible for humans create. Why
> set our sites on just
> good enough to get by? Strive for the very best
> arrangement that we can
> create. It will never be perfect and perfection is
> not the goal. Maximum
> attainable justice is the goal however.
>
> John Thornton
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0503-2, 01/21/2005
> Tested on: 1/24/2005 9:54:45 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com