You, Bill Bartlett, wrote:
>Laws against theft are designed to deter people from taking things they
>don't own, taking things you haven't worked for is not illegal as such
>(quite the opposite). So it is not considered wrong to take things you
>haven't worked for even under our current social structure, unless someone
>else has taken it first. I don't see how you can justify the argument that
>taking something first is more virtuous than taking it second.
I have NO idea what you are talking about here.
>>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.
>
>This is too easy! Are you REALLY suggesting that the only possible
>incentive to work is the threat of hunger?
Under your system there would be a strong threat of hunger because it
wouldn't produce enough to feed people, but let that pass for the moment.
If there are all these other wonderful incentives to work, how are they
unavailable to workers RIGHT NOW? Answer: they aren't. That's how you and
I know they exist. My wife loves her line of work (putting criminals in
jail) for its own sake, and so do many others. But let's not kid
ourselves, Bill. Most work is done for the money, and it always will be.
Even work that people find intrinsically rewarding is still ALSO done for
money (ask my spouse). Or are you saying that under your wonderful
system, where everyone can do whatever they want from the moment they
wake up, I would practice blues guitar all day, you would paint, and
others would do backbreaking work in the fields growing food, or (at the
other end of the consumption chain) picking up the trash? Chomsky never
addresses THAT little detail: who picks up the trash in his society based
on "classically liberal principles"? An argument that doesn't even
address the most obvious objections to it hardly merits my respect--even
if it comes from an otherwise brilliant man.
>>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.
>
>You can see WHAT across the border in Canada? What supposed abuse of the
>"social safety net" are you talking about? You'll have to spell it out for
>me, your description of their unemployment benefit system doesn't sound
>very generous to me, and I have no idea what you think these unspecified
>failures of the Canadian welfare system are meant to prove.
When I can readily have conversations with people whose "ambition" is to
take a job for two months, quit it, then take 10 months of unemployment
benefits to "party" on, I'd say that's an abuse of the system. It's also
an instant refutation of your notion that, freed from the burdens of wage
slavery, people will spontaneously turn into Stakhanovite workers. Notice
what it's called: "unemployment insurance"--not "10-month's vacation
courtesy of the taxpayer." As for the problems this kind of overgenerous
safety net generates, ask a typical Canadian. Their currency is in steady
decline, their deficit is bulging, and taxes are punitively high. I am
not saying these problems are entirely attributable to UI abuse, but it's
manifestly the case that this kind of abuse operates as a drag on
productivity, and Canadians of all stripes recognize it. Where they
sensibly differ from many Americans is that they don't conclude the
safety net itself is the problem.
>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.
>
>How does the capitalist system discourage the "selfishness existing ... in
>human nature"? How does wage slavery encourage the altruism? Your arguments
>are quite unconvincing
They are unconvincing when you put words in my mouth, Bill. I didn't say
anything about capitalism. But just as Chomsky says that a system based
on greed will reward greedy behavior, so does your system, based on the
lack of obligation to contribute to society, reward shiftlessness. QED.
>does prostitution encourage the altruism in
>human nature? I think not, but it is a perfectly valid example of work for
>wages, when you do any job simply because it is remunerated, rather than
>because it is worth doing you are no different than a prostitute.
I have certainly felt like a prostitute at some jobs I've had, Bill, but
that had to do with the nature of the work, rather than the motives for
doing it. But you socialists really need to get your party line
straightened out. I was over at another "progressive" discussion group
yesterday where a person was censured for using "prostitute"
perjoratively, as you just did. He was lectured that "prostitution" is a
fine, upstanding line of work that only capitalists look down upon. I'm
beginning to think that having it both ways is part of your argument.
When capitalists live off the labor of the workers that's wage slavery,
but when the workers live off the labor of [whoever is foolish enough to
remain at work under your system], that's liberation. Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.
Seems I recall reading somewhere in the socialist literature, "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I take it
the first half of this slogan was just a come-on?
_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't
betray it I'd be ashamed of myself." --Noam Chomsky, responding to an
accusation of betrayal by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
|
