>> > 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. [Justin]
>
>The idea of punishment and rewards being necessary to motivate workers is
>a Calvinistic tenet. This is what I was referring to. I was also
>attempting to be a bit cheeky as it were. My attempts at humor are seldom
>as amusing to others as I envision them. I will probably never do stand-up.
>
>> > 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. [Justin}
>
>This fact has been demonstrated to be very situationally dependent. Remove
>the exploitative, coercive nature of work and this fact will no longer be
>a fact.
>
>>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. [Justin]
>
>"that people will in fact contribute more if their reward depends on their
>contribution at least in part." is true in non-equal remunification
>exploitative societies. It does not hold that this is necessarily true in
>a society as has been described. I have not confused anything as far as I
>can see. Would you care to explain in greater detail what it is you
>believe I have confused? It is certainly possible that there is some
>point I am overlooking as that happens to everyone from time to time. I
>always welcome a chance to question my own assumptions about nebulous
>ideas such as this.
>
>>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? [Justin]
>
>This is the same question posed elsewhere. You should care about
>inequality in access to opportunities to satisfy preferences because this
>is how we achieve maximum freedom and justice.
>
>> 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. [Justin]
>
>There are always some free-riders but paying them as much as everyone else
>does not undermine your ability to satisfy your wants so don't worry about
>them. It is extremely improbable the number would be high enough to
>noticeable affect the standard of living. If that problem arose it could
>be dealt with but assuming the worst before hand is not justified. I can
>see that you disagree with this premise.
>
>> > 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.
>
>How sad that you would minimize the options of others so that a select few
>could have the benefit of increased opportunities at the cost of those
>opportunities to the rest of society. That would be the practical effect
>of what you advocate.
>
>> 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. [Justin]
>
>But it is punishment for anyone to see their opportunity sets reduced
>while simultaneously others are increased. If we care about justice that is.
>
>>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. [Justin]
>
>If you don't care then why argue against an equal opportunity for want
>satisfaction?
>
>>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? [Justin]
>
>I don't. I say that the free rider problem will be small and it is
>preferable to the problem of unequal opportunity for satisfaction,
>freedom, and ultimately justice. I do not disapprove of workaholicism (?)
>as much as I think it is unhealthy and would be harmful in the society I
>have laid out. It is harmful individually in most cases but I don't think
>it is necessarily harmful to society as it is currently arranged. All
>things being equal I would think it healthier to devote fewer hours toward
>making ends meet and more hours doing what we find satisfying. If you love
>your work that is not quite the same thing. Truthfully you would have a
>difficult time convincing me that a workaholic accountant, again all
>things being equal and their being maximally free to choose opportunities,
>would be happier doing accounting than something more personally
>satisfying. It is a difficult thing to think outside the confines of our
>society into what might be. I do not claim to have some ultimate truth.
>That my way is the most correct way. I just have yet to see a convincing
>argument for another arrangement offering as equal opportunities, freedom,
>and justice.
>
>John Thornton
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0504-1, 01/27/2005 Tested on: 1/26/2005 10:27:39 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com