[lbo-talk] cushy life/strict equality

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 25 20:18:02 PST 2005



>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>> >
> > I don't see how imposing equal incomes is at all
> > unfair.
> >
> > Carl
> >
>
>Whats' the point of it, though?

At the very least, relief from boredom. I've lived in a plutocracy for decades now and frankly I'm in the mood for something completely different.


>...If the idea that everyone is entitled
>to equal concern and respect, it is not obvious to me
>that giving them equal amounts of money or stuff is
>the propert wsay to express this.

Oh, I think nothing communicates concern and respect like giving people money.


>... This is I particularly pointed if you believeas I do,
>but as John and may you do not, in a principle of
>rewards at least partially according to contribution.
>There are two reasons to support the idea that those
>who _can_ contribute more, and do, should get more up
>to a certain point....

The only people who contribute "more" are workers who literally give of themselves and place their lives at risk. Otherwise, I think everyone else -- from brain surgeon to janitor to inventor to star baseball player -- is just basically doing his/her job and deserves the same pay. *Particularly* to the degree a job is more prestigious or interesting it should not offer the additional reward of higher pay. ( E.g., for artists, entrepreneurs, etc. work is play. They get vast psychic satisfaction from doing mental puzzles and should feel lucky to get paid at all.)


>People will work more if they think their efforts are
>rewarded ...

I think gold stars should the trick.


>... and they are less likely to resent the
>free-riding of others if they think that the free
>riders will get less.

Shirkers and others who try to game the system could be subject to really intense peer pressure. The Amish, I believe, are good at that kind of thing.


>I hasten to add that we all agree that there are kinds
>and degrees of inequality that are unacceptable for
>other reasons. Wealth on the level of Bill Gates or
>even the Bushes comes with power that distorts
>democratic processes, and therefore is unjust.

The threshold for wealth's corruptive effective on democracy starts far below the level of Bill Gates and the Bushes, I assure you.

Money (you may quote me) is evil's root.

Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list