Too authoritarian for my taste (again said as someone who lives queer).
> If all needs are met is it fair for me to say since I
want 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?
No, you should have the opportunity to work more and spend more of your disposable time earning income that will bring you that Ferrari. I may prefer to spend my disposable time watching movies or writing poetry or having sex. But people should be able to spend their time as they see fit.
> Individual desires don't really enter into the equation.
Of course they do. Since individual desires will require different mechanisms to satisfy them ranging from the simple to the complex, this fact will need to be taken into account if (as you stated) "[w]anting to fulfill desires beyond necessities is quite healthy."
> A society cannot reward expensive tastes so your ability to
engage in leisure time activities cannot be allocated according
to desires.
Your argument seems desire-phobic. Society would only reward expensive tastes if it allowed a person to harm the system that provides for everyone's essential needs in order to pursue specific individual desires of her own. I do have the belief that in a society where there was a felt obligation for people to engage in the satisfaction of essential needs for all people, there would be a gradual expansion of what was considered essential, so that what were formerly regarded as specialized needs would come to be understood as essential needs not shared by all. Your idea to limit everyone to the same amount of extra income would in my view create a negative fetish situation and do more harm than good (it also strikes me as a subtle tool of coercion).
Also, in response to what Bob W. posted:
> It seems important not to allow people to work more to earn more,
since that would lead to the appearance of privileged groups.
Again, I think this would be the case only if individuals were allowed to let their pursuit of earning more interfere with the system providing for essential needs and their obligations to its smooth and effective running. In a way, it is a variation of the fear that John wrote about: people will shirk their duties to the system that helps everyone (as opposed to the fear of people freeloading), if people are allowed to earn extra money at different rates. I think there will be people who freeload/shirk, but I do feel that their numbers will fall within a manageable range.
> Access to such activities should be kept equal.
Access is equal: when you have enough money you have access. It should be up to the individual to determine at what pace and in what manner he gets the money (with the constant caveat that his pursuit should not be injurious to the satisfaction of essential needs of all people).
> 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.
Will coercion be necessary because of too many freeloaders/shirkers? I do not think so, but since human beings have a way of behaving in unanticipated ways, we will only know once we get there.
Brian