[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

[Robert Wrubel]

To resolve this thorny problem (whether everyone
should have the same; how to accomodate people who
want more) what if everyone, in addition to
subsistence, were provided with something extra (movie
money, so to speak), that they were free to do what
they wanted with?  Someone who wanted to sail around
the globe, or have her own Steinway, would have to
save quite a lot of their weekly "allowance"; others
would be free to spend it on film festivals and
frappacinos.

It seems important not to allow people to work more to
earn more, since that would lead to the appearance of
priviledged groups.

Bob W

--- ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:


> On 18 Jul, 2007, at 10:41 AM, BklynMagus wrote:
> >
> >> Unequal remuneration will by its very nature
> cause
> > inequality in other areas.
> >
> > But is it ideal that everyone have the same?  Once
> the needs
> > that a community has decided are essential and
> must be
> > met have been met (acknowledging that expenditures
> may vary
> > among individuals in accomplishing this), why
> shouldn't
> > those who feel the need for more than the
> essentials be
> > allowed to try and satisfy those needs so long as
> they do not
> > disrupt or harm the delivery process involved in
> providing
> > for the essential needs of all?
> >
> >> Much greater harm is caused by unequal income and
> rewarding
> > desires that can only be satisfied if one has
> greater income
> > relative to others.
> >
> > But once essential needs are met, why wouldn't it
> be okay for
> > people to pursue the satisfaction of other needs?
> >
> >> Rather than worry about freeloaders why not be
> far more
> > concerned with the pathological behaviour of those
> who can
> > only feel motivated, fulfilled, etc. by having a
> higher level
> > of remuneration relative to others.
> >
> > Why is that pathologiocal?  I will admit up front
> to an
> > aversion to pathologizing desires (comes from
> living queer), but
> > I think that there will probably be people who
> want to have
> > more than others or whose desires are more
> intricate and require
> > greater resources to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> The "need" in "to each according to his needs" can
> be broadly defined  
> and possibly accommodate a wide range of
> desires/wants. The point  
> made by the person you are responding to is that the
> desire just to  
> make more is the pathological part, not the desire
> to have this or  
> that thing or pleasure. There is a difference
> between the two:  
> "people who want to have more" (pathological) and
> "require greater  
> resources to be fulfilled" (possibly
> natural/normal/acceptable).
> 
> 	--ravi
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>