You, Bill Bartlett, wrote:

>No. Socialists do not seek guaranteed employment, but guaranteed access to
>the necessities of life; employment (in the lteral sense of utilisation or
>exploitation) is what socialists seek to abolish.
Gee, that must come as a surprise to the folks like Stalin and Mao, who
gave us forced labor camps. So how do things get made in your socialist
utopia?

>"bupkis" is another quaint piece of the American vernacular, meaning bugger
>all, I assume.
Actually, it's Yiddish, I think.

>However, although notion that given the chance 9/10 of
>people would opt out of any contribytion to society has wider distribution
>is equally quaint. It is also seriously undermined in my view by the
>observed fact that those who espouse this view, to a man, always consider
>that it is OTHER people who would choose this option.
So no one would take advantage of a system that didn't expect them to
contrbute in some measure to the system that's keeping them alive? Do we
have laws against theft? Why is that, do you suppose? Might it be because
humans take things they haven't worked for? Let's say that the majority
of humans are honest, i.e., they don't need laws against theft to tell
them it's wrong. Do you still think they don't recognize that some aren't
so virtuous?
>
>As far as I can tell it does not even occur to these people to choose this
>option for themselves, as indicated by their protest that "I" or "we" would
>then have to support new idle class. Why then do they think these others
>would? Why do they think THEMSELVES so unique in wanting to work towards
>the good of society?

That seems to be the stance you are casting yourself in, Bill. The thing
that I don't get about socialists is that for all their talk about
securing the necessities of life, they have no interest in making sure
the necessities get produced.
>
>I can't help but think it may be another "manufactured" superstition. I am
>especially intrigued by Tresy's prognosis that something like 90% of people
>would opt out of a meaningful and useful life if they were emancipated from
>wage slavery, ie. no longer compelled to work? I have never come across
>anyone quite so pessimistic before. Is this a normal part of the north
>American belief system, if so it merits further study.
90% was a fligure plucked out of a hat. I think there would be serious
social problems if the figure were even 10%. As the number of shirkers
rose, the incentive to non-shirkers to join the shirkers would grow as
well, because the marginal benefit of shirking would grow while that of
not shirking would drop. I can see that when I cross the border into
Canada, where you can get 10 months unemployment benefits for 2 months
work. While I applaud their commitment to a serious social safety net,
the abuse it attracts is easy to find. They recognize it too, and are
seeking to find a way of preserving the net while discouraging its abuse.

I find myself in the odd position of sounding like Don Brayton, who had
expressed reservations about a society founded on freedom from the duty
to work. At the time I said I told him I didn't think a majority of
people would be so foolish as to construct a society that worked that
way. I still do. Most people recognize the selfishness existing side by
side with the altruism in human nature, and sensibly seek to ensure that
the latter is encouraged while the former is discouraged.


_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or
sober.'" -- G. K. Chesterton