> > 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? [Justin]
Needs and wants are treated differently. Needs are filled first. The remainder is used to fill wants and is distributed equally. I've written this before but I can retype it again. There is nothing unequal about treating wants as equal bundles among people. You assess what level of remuneration can be sustained and parse it out in the form of a payment to each individual after all needs are satisfied. You have no choice but to accept the fact that people must bear the consequences of the preferences or tastes they have on their level of welfare or preference satisfaction. To do otherwise, to take into account individual expensive preferences, would amount to giving more resources to those with more expensive or difficult to satisfy tastes. This does not work to equalize peoples opportunities. You are seriously advocating because I want a Ferrari and Tom wants ice cream I should be given 37,000 times remuneration so we can fill our preferences and then consider this just? You are saying this if you wish to treat wants unequally.
>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"). [Justin]
No! Stop lumping needs with wants. You keep doing this. I don't. Of course filling needs will be unequal. I have never stated otherwise and have explicitly stated that this is so.
>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? [Justin]
It is equal in opportunity to maximize their freedom and welfare at such a level that no one can be made better off, with respect to need satisfying resources, another has access to than with their own. If you have a better route toward maximizing everyones opportunities I am open to hearing about it.
>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? [Justin]
You are entitled to the same opportunity for piano acquisition as everyone else. No one cares whether you can play or not. It will lose its symbolic status however with everyone having equal opportunity to acquire one. This incidentally is one of the differences between what I am proposing and Parecon.
> > 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. [Justin]
The fact that everyone is not equally endowed with talent, character, intelligence, all these things that cannot be expressed as some metric that allows us to take them precisely into account matters a great deal. Why should two piano players, one of whom is born with more talent make more money? What is just about rewarding an accident of birth? You feel that the incentive to be a great surgeon or tennis player is driven too much by remuneration. I doubt that I can change your mind. You are projecting the values of people who live in an oppressive society that values wealth excessively on future generation who could be raised not to think that way very easily in an equally remunerative society. I think having people excel at many endeavors does benefit society as a whole I just don't think you have to bribe them to do so.
> 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. [Justin]
I do not advocate the hard determinism that it may seem I do at first glance. Another crude analogy (can you tell I teach 18 to 25 year olds?) will hopefully make the point more clearly than I have done so far. If one persons "determination", admittedly unmeasurable, is 10% inherited and 90% societally derived and another persons is 5% and 95% and a third is 15% and 85% since it is impossible to determine this the only just way is to treat them all as equal and assume it is high. Assuming it is low will allow to many people to "fall between the cracks" as it were. Crude, but a quick email friendly format to explain the basic thought process behind that particular assumption. You seem to be advocating a similar idea with respect to the concept of human nature. It seems to run a little like this: {People need addition financial incentives to excel in their field otherwise they will "slack" and work poorly. This has been true in the past. It is not a function of existence in an exploitative society with unequal opportunities but rather some characteristic of human nature. Placing people in an egalitarian society with equal opportunities will not rid them of this aspect of human nature.} If you are not advocating this I would like to know why you insist so axiomatically that there must be an addition reward beyond what I have already described in order to act as incentive to strive for excellence or even do more than just a half-assed job?
>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"? [Justin]
But wealth CAN be translated into power in many circumstances if the holder should so desire. King and Sosa don't want it but Bush does. You don't have to purchase the means of production to have an unequal grip on the levers of power do you? Certainly in a more just society wealth should be less of a conduit to power but that will not be eliminated. The lust some people have for power will never be eliminated. This is denying them one more path to achieve their means however. Any inequality in opportunity satisfying ability could be used exploitatively and nothing positive can be gained from it. We gain nothing as a society by having 14,000 or 45,000 or whatever number of individuals with incomes 2 or more times higher than others so why have it? It is unnecessary as incentive and quite potentially corrosive.
>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. [Justin]
It is more than just power it is opportunity. Unequal incomes give unequal opportunities. This matters more than the issue of power. If we seek justice we seek equal opportunities as far as we can.
> 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. [Justin]
Before I make it plausible to you is what I think you mean. It is more than plausible to me and a few others.
> > 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 6:50:12 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com