>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"?
You're missing the point. It isn't the unequal incomes that a market system of reward for work which are the main problem, but simply the fact that this makes it necessary for some people to have power to enforce it. It is inevitable that this power will be corrupted and abused.
> > 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.
Resentment of bosses is also natural. And gives rise to just as big a problem of inefficiencies.
>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?
The basis of economic power is the connection between work and income. This is what gives your boss power over you. This is what creates the potential for bosses, or even workmates, to sexually exploit workers, amongst many other forms of abuse. Take away that social link between needs and work and a great many ills of society are made impossible.
Retain that link and most people remain economically subservient and dependent. If you care about inequalities of power more than you care about a minority of "goof-offs", then you have to accept that universal freedom cannot be realised in any system where the link between work and income is maintained.
>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
As I have already demonstrated, there is nothing "optimistic" about the notion that people do not require coercion to contribute to society. Even under the perverse anti-social capitalist system, huge numbers of people freely volunteer their labour. Sometimes on top of having to work for a living.
>. 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.
But those who do work will do so voluntarily. It is a proven fact of human nature that free labour is enormously more productive than coerced labour. Never mind the enormous efficiency gains of doing away with the need to administer and supervise the system of incentives, rewards and punishments for workers. Which, if you stop to think about it, is a truly enormous enterprise, consuming anything up to 75% of all labour in capitalist society.
> 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.
It will not get more goods and those who suffer from resentment should be given psychiatric help to overcome their problem. Rather than structuring the whole of society around their psychosis.
>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?
It isn't a problem except in the heads of people habituated to the present system.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas