>
>> 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. [JT]
>>
>> 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. If the essential needs of all
>> have been met, why shouldn't people be free to pursue the
>> satisfaction of their other desires (again, so long as no injury
>> is done to the process of satisfying essential desires)? [Brian]
>>
It is pathological to feel the need to have more relative to others in
order to feel fulfilled, motivated, satisfied, etc. Wanting to fulfill
desires beyond necessities is quite healthy. Wanting everyone else to be
capable of doing so is also healthy. Insisting on having greater income
and therefore greater opportunities relative to others is pathological.
If all needs are met is it fair for me to say since I want a a new
Ferrari every year and you only want to attend a film festival I should
get 35 times more income than you so we can both be satisfied?
Individual desires don't really enter into the equation. You fill your
desires with the income you have.
> But isn't the priority a) creating equal access and availability
> to what society has determined is essential; and b) preventing
> behaviors that will interfere with and violate this access?
>
> Maybe someone wants to sail around the world while all I want is a
> subscription to the New York Film Festival. My desire is much
> more easily met, and so long as the person does no harm to essential
> service provision, then she can knock herself out getting a boat
> and supplies so she can go around the globe.
>
> Brian
Again keeping in mind Parecon, which is what I was responding to
directly, both persons can do these things. If person A wishes to sail
around the world they can save their income until they can afford to do
so. You meanwhile will be able to attend the NY Film Festival annually
in all probability. A society cannot reward expensive tastes so your
ability to engage in leisure time activities cannot be allocated
according to desires. Access to such activities should be kept equal.
Hahnel/Albert and I agree on this but where we part company is they
believe both in rewarding the pathological behaviour described above as
well as fearing people will not "do enough constructive work" without
being coerced. The only way I see to address both these problems, within
the framework set by Parecon, is to set income levels equally regardless
of work. This guarantees no one will be coerced into working undesirable
jobs better than any arrangement I have seen to date. Hahnel/Albert are,
quite tellingly in my opinion, more worried about free riders than
coercive work conditions. They acknowledge the problem of individual
pathological desires to increase ones income disproportionately to
others but feel societal pressures alone will prevent this. Why social
pressure will prevent the pathological desires of one social subset but
economic coercion is needed to curb the similar pathology of another
social subset is left unexplained. It is interesting that curbing lazy
desires (Is it uncharitable to read this as poor/minorities?) calls for
economic coercion but curbing the accumulating/controlling desires
(WASP'S?) needs only social pressure. This is simple bourgeois thinking;
the hardworking are good people who will respond to gentle social
pressure but the lazy laborers need a stick to motivate them. Complete
horseshit.
I will also repeat that the only other person on this list who posted that they felt coercion was not necessary in any manner for society to get its required work accomplished was Bill and that was both interesting and surprising. The idea of equal income without regards to work effort seems to bother a great many here.
John Thornton