--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't see how imposing equal incomes is at all
> > > unfair.
> > >
> > > Carl
> >
> >Whats' the point of it, though? [Justin]
>
> The point is to maximize justice for all. This is
> the best route to that.
This begs the question -- what's just? I don't believe that equal incomes is the best route to distributive justice and neither do you. As you note below, people's needs and wants are not equal. It traets them unequally to give them equal incomes, therefore. Now, we necessarily have to treat people unequally, but why is this the appropriate sort of unequal treatment? As far as I can tell, while Carl asserts without argument that it is, unless you count a misquote from St. Paul as an argument ("Money is the root of all evil," -- the actual statement is "The love of money [cupiditas] is the root of all evil."), you actually think people should receive unequal incomes proportionate to their needs and wants. (Marx agreed, though he thought that wasn't justice ("Recht").
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. [Justin]
>
> It is more than just concern and respect it is about
> maximizing justice and
> opportunity, real freedom.
The question is, what is justice? Opportunirt and freedom might be two of the goods the distribution of which,a long with wealth and income, we are concerned with distributing justly. But what is the just distribution? Why think it is an equal one, or if it is, in what respect is it equal?
>
> I am talking about everyone being entitled to the
> same thing.
So I am entitled to a piano if anyone is? Even if I don't want it and can't use it? Or even if I do want it but can't use it except as a status symbol? Even if it would benefit society more to have pianos distributed to piano players rather than people who would use them as, say, tables, or gut them and turn them into planters?
Contributions
> are necessarily going to be unequal by their nature.
Yes,and?
> It is time to stop
> giving the lions share to the largest lion.
Why? Why shouldn't those who contribute more get more? Is it because it's not their responsibility that they have the talent or character to contribute more? That is a reasonable objection, but first, you don't respond to the point that there is evidence that it benefits everyone to provide people with incentives (up to a poiunt) to develop their talents and cultivate their characters. That is, unless you believe Carl that gold stars will do just as well, a proposition for which he offers no evidence.
Second, the idea thatw e have no responsibility for our talent and character seems to depend on a very strong metaphysical view -- hard determinism -- which sort of undermines the point of moral evaluation at all, including assessment of actions an institutions as just or not.
> It
> > Rewarding the workaholic who has no life other
than
> working 75 hours a week
> is counterproductive.
Why? If she wants to bust her butt doing something that benefits all of us, why don;t we in fact benefit if she does it 75 hoursa week?
If all are rewarded equally
> regardless of effort then
> persons who are "gifted" with a driven personality
> will not accumulate more
> pay (however defined) than those who are not. This
> prevents them from
> accumulating power.
OK, here;s the bite. You don't want unequal wealth because you don't want unequal power. But the question of what kind of wealth translates into power is an empirical one. As I have already ponted out, there are people who are fabulously wealthy but have no power -- actors like Harrison Ford, atheletes like Sammy Sosa, authors like Stephen King. So not all wealth means bad inequalities of power. You deny this below, saying that people like this have "potential" power -- this is what happens when you forget the ABC's of Marxism. Can we remember the expression "Ownership of the means of production"?
But say you are right that there is no difference between Barry Bonds and Bill Gates. Still there needs to be some reason to think that modest inequalities of wealth -- say a 5:1 ratio between the richest and poorest -- means unacceptably disproportionate power asymmetries. On your own principles, the obkection is not to inequalities, but to inequalities that gives ome people too much power.
Based only on
> the fact that you and I exist do we "deserve" the
> same rewards.
Everyone is entitled to equal concern and respect just based on being human. But you will have to do some more explanation before you start to make it plausible that being human entitles you to equal incomes.
> Calvinism always rears its head in this discussion.
Incentives are facts of psychology, not religion. I don't think it's particularly evidence of being salved taht you work hard and get rich. But people will in fact work harder or in areas where we might them to work if you pay them more.
> For you resentment of
> free-riders trumps resentment of inequality. Why is
> that?
Because I think it is a social and psychological fact that resentment of (material) inequality is weak but resentment of goof-offs is intense and bitter.
If you have what
> you need plus the additional "income" that everyone
> else has why do you
> care how much they did to "earn" it?
You are confusing desert and incentives here -- incentivesa re a consequentialsit concern. The point about incentives is taht people will in fact contribute more if their reward depends on their contribution at least in part.
Why is concern
> for eliminating
> inequality somehow second to your concern that some
> people need an
> additional reward for their work?
Because I don't care about material inequality as such. It doesn't bother me. I do care about material inadequacy -- everyone should have enough. I do care about inequalities of power -- no one should have too much, that being enough to give you disproportionate power. But why do you care if someone else has more than you do if you have enougha nd they don't have too much?
For what it is
> worth I don't believe that
> the free-rider problem would be as bad as you seem
> to envision. In a
> society very different from our own it is not too
> much of a stretch to
> imagine that a sense of belonging, community, and
> contribution would
> provide a greater work incentive than the ability to
> purchase extra widgets.
I don't think we should base our hopes for a new society on highly optimistic ideas about how human nature might be if things were different. In particular, if we totally discontecct reward from contribution, if I get the same whether I contribute my all or nothing at all, I think there are a lot of people who would contribute nothing. Under any circumstances.
>
> There are better reasons to assume equality is not
> just a baseline but a
> requirement for justice. Providing a just and
> equitable society for all
> people isn't incentive enough?
No.
You have to have more
> than someone else in
> order to be happy?
It doesn't have to be relational -- I might want more without caring what others have, which I think is widely true.
You have to see others "punished"
> or at least denied
> maximum freedom for their laziness as an incentive
> for you to provide? I
> doubt these things are true but you write as if you
> believe them.
Punished is the wrong word -- it's not harm imposed for bad conduct to get less because you don't contribute as much. And yes, I think it's socially necessary for the lazy to be denied the freedom to goof off at my expense. This both to get more goods for all to have and to avoid resentment that would eestabilize society.
Why do you
> care how much another
> has if you have all your needs met additionally you
> have no more unmet
> wants (or the possibility of such anyway) than
> everyone else?
I don't -- that is why I don't care about material inequality as such. It's you who care if some have more.
You
> need the ability to
> accumulate more of something, anything, than others
> have in order to spur
> you to action? If this isn't the case in your
> instance (and I assume it
> isn't) why put yourself on a pedestal and assume
> other "lesser" folks will
> en mass do just the thing you profess to dislike?
> Why won't they dislike it
> too?
Well, I'm a Calvinist workaholic, a character type of which you disapprove. But we know that free rider problems are real and pervasive. Why do you persist in think that if you turn everything into a public good that we don't have public goods problems?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com