You're taking the side of equal remuneration? Have you mentioned some social arrangement which would ensure this, and I just missed it? Or is your belief maybe that humans are such ideal social actors that they'll naturally dole out the product of their hard work equally to anyone who wants it, regardless of what work anyone else does?
When I visited pretty democratic communities like some ecovillages, where people had a large say in their conditions, mostly free of external repression, I don't remember them looking gladly upon free riding. What insights are they missing? Or did I just not see the dissenters being dragged off into the shed and silenced?
My understanding is that humans are diverse; we're all capable of self-interested and social behavior. Any of us could do elevated or terrible things, depending on our situations.
> Can you give me a reason for opposing an equal distribution of all
> income, after all needs have been met, that is not "incredibly weak and
> rooted in irrational fear"?
> I'd enjoy reading it.
Am I "opposing an equal distribution of all income, after all needs have been met"?
If saw much reason that your ideas would result in this, I'd of course be far more excited about them. If I knew some country was doing this without oppression or severe environmental damage, I'd try to support it.
But some have concerns about your ideas, and maybe it's not enough to respond that they're cynical and irrational for bringing them up, and that they're like all the irrational others who disagree with your views on this. That sounds pretty cynical too.
Same applies to me. Just because I have some cute messages about equity, solidarity, self-management, diversity and warm fuzzies, doesn't make my ideas magically immune to the serious concerns others have. Including your own concerns, which I think are reasonable.
Tayssir