[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

[John Thornton]

Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> On 7/15/07, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>   
>> To directly answer Doug's question as posed to Bill: "do you think a
>> just society should allow some people to coast by on the labor of others?"
>> Of course! When my work allows others the freedom to not work it
>> maximizes my own freedom.
>> I actually have more freedom under such a system than I would under any
>> other system. Anything less is a less just societal arrangement.
>>     
>
> These arguments look very similar to the rejection of institutional
> constraints that some anarchists have. I got the impression that you
> don't actually want an economic system, in the sense I think of it: a
> collection of people playing societal roles and forming institutions.
>
> So it's no surprise that you find the whole thing irrational and unjust.
>
> Hahnel claimed that humans are social, in that we build social
> institutions and cooperate within them to take care of our needs and
> desires. (Certainly not just economic ones, but also for procreation,
> etc.) Of course, we're more than just our social selves; we're also
> self-creating and so on.
>
> So the question is, if we happen to like building social institutions,
> what do we want from them?
>
>
> Tayssir
You misunderstand me apparently.
Of course I want such institutions and I do not see how a complex 
society can exist without them.
I just disagree that we need a carrot and stick approach to individual 
remuneration.

The simplest way to explain it is that everyone would receive exactly 
the same "income" however defined, after having their needs met.
The idea that some people "need" the incentive of more disposable income 
relative to others in order to provide an incentive to work is total 
horseshit!

Picture a single man 25 years of age, a single mother of 4 children aged 
33, and a quadriplegic man aged 48.
The needs of the single mother and the quadriplegic man would be greater 
than the single man if we wish to afford them, as approximately as we 
can, the same opportunity sets. After these needs are met then the 
remainder of societies surplus value would then be split equally among them.
Extremely simplified example to be sure but you get the idea from this 
example.
What exactly is unfair about such an arrangement?
Why does the single man "Need" more income than the other two, if he 
works more hours, in order to provide him with an incentive to do his work?
The amount of work each contributes is of no importance even that amount 
is zero.
It's a big fucking world and society needs much less work than the whole 
of humanity is capable of providing.
Let the ones who wish to work do so and let all of humanity divide the 
fruits of that labor equally.
In my eyes anything less is painfully unfair.
Such a society is hundreds of year, if ever, in the future so I don't 
spend much time contemplating it but I really find the fear filled 
worries about free riders overblown.

John Thornton