>Why? Those who can't work, I can see that. I can see an expanded
>definition of work to cover nontraditional categories of labor. I
>can see a minimum income so nobody starves, however lazy and
>unproductive they may be.
>
>But if someone wants to sit on the beach and read John Grisham while
>I take out the garbage and clean up after dinner, that's not fair or
>reasonable if he gets, in addition to that, the same material
>benefits as those who assume the burdens of necessary labor.
>
>Why should he get equal benefits? He's enjoyed the benefits of
>amusing himself while I have undertaken the burden of doing
>something necessary and unpleasant. Why should he get everything
>that I get? Hasn't he already got his?
It sounds to me as if it isn't so much that you have a problem with someone being unproductive, as you have a problem with someone not suffering unpleasantness? You assume work has to be unpleasant, therefor people have to be compelled to do it. And those who won't be compelled should be made to suffer, so that they don't put the obedient slave at a disadvantage to the disobedient slave.
But how are you going to deal with those bastards who actually enjoy their work? It isn't fair, perhaps they should be forced to sit on the beach, do you think? That way they will suffer as much as the person compelled to do the work he hates.
>Isn't it in fact exploiting me to say, OK, now we all get equal (I
>simplify) shares, John, and Justin alike? But but, I squawk. Now
>now, John says, We are socialists here. Guess who's gonna do the
>garbage and the dishes next time? Not moi. Short sighted? I don't
>think it is me who is being short sighted.
You want everyone to have equally unpleasant lives, you want everyone to be exploited equally? Is that it? Well I am trying to be charitable, but it does seem short-sighted, yes.
Given that people who enjoy what they do are more productive by far, might it not be better for everyone if people were given a bit of economic freedom? I know the wowser Calvinists will hate the idea of anyone actually enjoying life, I know some people think that everyone is put on earth to suffer, and perhaps that is an ideal philosophy for people for whom there there are no other options anyhow. But it isn't much use as a philosophy for a prosperous and free people.
In a nutshell, instead of assuming that all work has to be unpleasant and people have to be compelled to endure it, why not assume that productive labour can and should be made pleasant and be a reward unto itself? Then everyone can be happy, rather than everyone be miserable. It that such a vile concept? It is to the Calvinist of course, but that philosophy is the problem.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas