Let's say there are ten of us in the commune. Someone asks "who's going to harvest the corn tomorrow?" One person volunteers, and the rest decide to play chess. The next evening everyone is hungry, and all ten volunteer. No "society" is needed to legislate this; individual self-interest and survival are all that's needed.
--- BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > How could it be otherwise? If anyone has the
> freedom to stop working at any time they wish and
> suffer absolutely no financial penalty for doing
> so this maximizes their freedom, from an economic
> standpoint.
>
> But how would society maintain enough people working
> so that some people could choose not to work without
> suffering any penalty?
>
> > Perhaps I should say under any other system I know
> about.
>
> It sounds good, and it works as long as enough
> people decide to work.
>
> > Such a system could still have draconian laws that
> curtail other freedoms but I am speaking of economic
> freedom.
>
> Got it.
>
> > Perfectly just distribution of income does not
> guarantee maximum social freedom but it is necessary
> to maximize all forms of freedom.
>
> But what is perfectly just distribution? Everyone
> getting exactly the same with no possibility of
> differentials existing between people? Or everyone
> getting the same base living standard which they can
> supplement if they choose to?
>
> Brian
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>