|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inequality
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The only garbage man I know is an ex-con (and an occasionally-attending Anglican) and he once told me how much he liked the job. He saw the city at dawn, was always moving around, was outside, there were always people saying hello, the work was physical, and he didn't have to share a shower room with two dozen anti-social people after work. He felt good after work, but wasn't sure if everyone had the same feeling after their day. He said it was great for a few years, but then he found a job as a farmworker, with many of the same benefits, but with better food.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In a society where that need will be met regardless of what job (if any) a person does, the only way the garbage will be collected on anything like a regular basis will be if the government forces some people to do it.
It's a good thing that in our society market forces have organised things so that an unpleasant job like rubbish collection is rewarded proportionately to the degree nobody wants to do it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In a society where we don't work for needs, I think we might work for luxuries or more choice hours.
In which case we would still have inequality, just on a different basis.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's a good thing that in our society market forces have organised things so that an unpleasant job like rubbish collection is rewarded proportionately to the degree nobody wants to do it.
Garbage collection does in fact pay considerably more than many other jobs that might be considered more pleasant.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Far more cohesive, far more comprehensive, would be a moral society that depends on the moral stature of it's component people. Centrally to my world view, this is the goal I argue for, the assumption underlying all my posts.
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about what we can do in the real world, but apparently not.
There is always a cynic. It keeps us grounded. But it doesn't inspire anyone, to be better than they might otherwise be.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In a society where we don't work for needs, I think we might work for luxuries or more choice hours.
In which case we would still have inequality, just on a different basis.
Just to bring this back to the central issue of the thread, we lucky Western people might negotiate around luxuries or choice hours or the discongeniality of our work, but still, I say, fully one third of the world's population get less than $1.50 per day. Are we being partial, in our considerations?
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This is the problem with all these utopian schemes. They depend on a central authority.
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate. Probably sometimes it is necessary, but it will always produce sub-optimal results.
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact. Not an endorsement of socialism, just an observation that alternatives require pretty much the same degree of centralization, rendering the argument moot.
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Just to bring this back to the central issue of the thread, we lucky Western people might negotiate around luxuries or choice hours or the discongeniality of our work, but still, I say, fully one third of the world's population get less than $1.50 per day. Are we being partial, in our considerations?
Probably, but given that the agenda typically driving such observations is not raising up the global poor but rather suppressing the fortunes of "lucky Western people" (one-third of the world's population get less than $1.50/day, so my employees should consider themselves lucky to get paid $1.00/hour) or telling the global poor that they should feel lucky that Western corporations give them jobs that pollute their cities with toxic foam or in sweatshops that only sometimes collapse.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
This isn't a balanced thing. On one hand this, on the other that.
The possibility of catastrophic failure is there regardless of the willingness to risk.
This is not true for those more well off.
It is the difference between stepping onto a high-wire across the Grand Canyon with a worn cable and no safety net and doing so in a circus with a net and having been raised by a high-wire family.
Yes. All of which really increases the economic divide. Precisely because the wealthy have good safety nets in place (such as the million dollar loan Trump got from his dad starting out) they are able to take the sorts of risks that pay off big time and allow them to amass greater wealth. And precisely because they cannot afford to take those risks-- it would often be irresponsible to do so-- the poor have fewer opportunities to get ahead.
Which is why I see a fundamental contradiction in Tory philosophy. One the one hand they want people to be self-sufficient, to start businesses, but on the other they want to reduce the safety net that enables people to take the risk of doing exactly that. I have considered one or two self-employed options over the years, and whilst I haven't availed myself of any of them as yet, I will only be able to do so if I so choose because there is a safety net that will stop me and my family from starving to death in the street if I fail. In the logical conclusion of the Tory philosophy - right-wing libertarianism, I would consider anyone taking that sort of risk to be an absolute idiot. In a welfare state, it is a considerably more rational option.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Probably, but given that the agenda typically driving such observations is not raising up the global poor but rather suppressing the fortunes of "lucky Western people" (one-third of the world's population get less than $1.50/day, so my employees should consider themselves lucky to get paid $1.00/hour) or telling the global poor that they should feel lucky that Western corporations give them jobs that pollute their cities with toxic foam or in sweatshops that only sometimes collapse.
Dear Croesos, the whole idea is to raise up the poor, and diminish the wealthy, unto such a point as the $241 trillion of world wealth is fairly, equitably (not necessarily, equally) distributed. I cannot see a different way to end economic inequality; if you can, I am interested.
Cheers, PV.
[ 30. October 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
I would argue no.
They certainly involve a degree of centralisation - in so much as any nation state does, but not necessarily excessive (which is the hallmark of totalitarian states, be they communist or fascist). However, the aims of the social democratic state are different to the aims of a neo-liberal free market state, and so they put the centralised mechanisms of state to work differently.
The idea that a neo-liberal free market state is less centralised has, I believe, been shown to be utter bunk.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact. Not an endorsement of socialism, just an observation that alternatives require pretty much the same degree of centralization, rendering the argument moot.
You can't seriously think that government protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud but otherwise leaving them to their own devices is "pretty much the same degree of centralisation" as government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own, can you?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I find these caricatures "Socialism wants to decide how much everyone is allowed to own" more than a bit dishonest.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
Communism, as taught to me in college, is definitely about the idea that the state can plan better the economic requirements of it's citizens than the free market can. Socialism, on the other hand, seems to be a looser, less authoritarian concept. Some forms of socialism, notably that of the Blair government in the UK, have embraced the free market as a means to distribute goods and services and generate tax revenue, while putting that revenue (and, some would say, more than that revenue) back into community projects such as health centres, social housing, educational provision, and so on.
Cheers, PV.
[ 30. October 2015, 15:20: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find these caricatures "Socialism wants to decide how much everyone is allowed to own" more than a bit dishonest.
Consider the alternative: we could have a dozen people owning everything for us.
Oh, wait...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact.
You can't seriously think that government protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud but otherwise leaving them to their own devices is "pretty much the same degree of centralisation" as government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own, can you?
Not sure there's a huge practical distinction between "protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud" and "government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own". Preventing theft (or recovering stolen property) is a form of telling people they can't own certain things. Ditto for using the civil courts to adjudicate disputed property. We don't recognize these as exercises of central authority because they're so ubiquitous.
To illustrate this with an historical example wherein property rights were defined somewhat differently than today, consider Harriet Tubman. Ms. Tubman was most historically notorious for stealing the property of various farmers in Maryland. Of course, her main objection was that the particular variety of property she repeatedly stole should not have been classified as such. Nonetheless, a huge amount of governmental authority was put in to the efforts to prevent such thefts and Ms. Tubman's arguments would have likely been considered unpersuasive by the state had she ever been caught. We only recognize the degree of centralization that was involved because most of us today have accepted Ms. Tubman's position regarding this particular variety of property.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
Strange. All I get is that HT was a leading campaigner against slavery, releasing many, a campaigner for women's rights. You link to Wikipedia which offers the following verdict: quote:
Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after she died. A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War, third only to Betsy Ross and Paul Revere.[152] She inspired generations of African Americans struggling for equality and civil rights; she was praised by leaders across the political spectrum.
How did you get from this to notorious property thief? You may be right but it doesn't leap out of any description I have read of her.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
Strange. All I get is that HT was a leading campaigner against slavery, releasing many, a campaigner for women's rights. You link to Wikipedia which offers the following verdict: quote:
Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after she died. A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War, third only to Betsy Ross and Paul Revere.[152] She inspired generations of African Americans struggling for equality and civil rights; she was praised by leaders across the political spectrum.
How did you get from this to notorious property thief? You may be right but it doesn't leap out of any description I have read of her.
Also from the Wiki article:
quote:
Over eleven years Tubman returned repeatedly to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, rescuing some 70 slaves in about thirteen expeditions, including her three other brothers, Henry, Ben, and Robert, their wives and some of their children. She also provided specific instructions to 50 to 60 additional fugitives who escaped to the north.
Once again, I'd suggest that the reason Tubman's thefts "doesn't leap out of any description [you] have read of her" is because our ideas of 'property' are more in line with hers than with her contemporaries in the Maryland slaveholding class.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
It seems rather to me that he is pointing out how culturally bound our notions of "centralized government control" might be. "Preventing theft/ protecting private property" sounds like a pretty benign form of government control to most of us as compared to what seems to us a much more intrusive control in communist countries. The Tubman example is showing us another, much less benign (in retrospect) pov on government "preventing theft/ protecting private property". Which begs the question-- to what degree does the role the government plays in protecting private property play when it comes to say, banks using the bankruptcy courts to enforce highly questionable foreclosure practices, as we saw at the height of the recession?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
Not at all. Just pointing out that what we call "property law" represents a huge amount of "central authority", despite the popularity of claims to the contrary. We may find it a more palatable central authority than other varieties, but pretending that it's not is deceptive, and very often self-deceptive.
[ 30. October 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
[ 30. October 2015, 20:52: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
I don't know if runaway slaves were ever charged with theft-- they were already slaves, so what would you gain from such a charge? But definitely anyone (such as Tubman) who aided and abetted their escape would be charged with theft. This was true even in the Northern free states, which is why Tubman's underground railroad had to stretch all the way up to Canada.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
It's just as easy to argue that force is equally necessary to maintain material inequality, given the vast legal and enforcement mechanisms that seems to be required.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
As cliffdweller notes, it was argued that abolitionists who aided slave escapes were engaged in theft. Admitting that slaves themselves had motivations and desires that should be taken in to account was something those in the slave states assiduously avoided discussing. Frederick Douglass was fond of forcing recognition of this omission by starting his public speeches on the subject of abolition with the statement "I appear before you this evening as a thief and a robber. I stole this head, these limbs, this body from my master and ran off with them"
[ 30. October 2015, 21:50: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
I'm not even sure that a few of them want material equality. It's not a concept that turns up in most socialist thought.
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
I'm not even sure that a few of them want material equality. It's not a concept that turns up in most socialist thought.
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
As well as the understanding that "socialism" exists on a continuum. It's not simply a binary question of "socialist" or "not socialist". Even the US is "socialist" to a degree. Other nations could be considered to be "more socialist" relative to the US, but "less socialist" than others.
[ 31. October 2015, 00:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
I am not even sure, though this seems to be the consensus assumption of the thread, that what I am advocating is socialism. The voluntary limitation of wealth to $33,000 or so per person, and income to $11,000 approx per year per person, does not, to my knowledge, appear in Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, etc. Or, to take a British perspective, Kier Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald, James Callaghan, Tony Blair or even Jeremy Corbyn. To me, what I suggest just seems fair. So I propose to call my call, not socialism, but equitable economic voluntarism, or EEV, if you want a snappier, more memorable, label.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 11:21: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia, socialism is quote:
a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
By this description, I don't think what you've talked about so far qualifies as socialism; you haven't said much at all about the ownership and control of the means of production, let alone proposed something that could be described as a system.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Thanks for that. No, I don't propose a system; just an idea of social justice that could be grown into general movement, should that prove to be a popular notion. As for systems and 'big' political ideas; well, we have the whole of the twentieth century, which has left us a legacy of war, famine, preventable disease and premature death, to give us twenty-first century people enough reason to be suspicious of them.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 12:03: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
Indeed so; but I propose an unsystematic system, which people can choose, or not choose, according to whatever system they might prefer, or might not prefer.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Just so. But I think many of our problems of 'socioeconomic relations' would fade to nothing in a context of a more equitable distribution of net worth and income. And, why shouldn't we be nicer to each other? Agape, Christian love, needs expression to be demonstrably real.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Distributivism is, as far as I can see, only half an idea, but it has the feature of a low profile state, widely distributed ownership and decision making, and the hope that this would limit inequality. In a small company, the pay of the boss and the cleaner shouldn't be many multiples apart. The boss of a company twice that size, twenty or twenty thousand times that size might have a proportionately high salary.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
Indeed so; but I propose an unsystematic system, which people can choose, or not choose, according to whatever system they might prefer, or might not prefer.
Well, that they can do already - so mission accomplished, I guess. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Just so. But I think many of our problems of 'socioeconomic relations' would fade to nothing in a context of a more equitable distribution of net worth and income.
But why do you think that? And "Socioeconomic relations" aren't just problems (though they may be problematic) - they determine how we decide what is produced and how it is consumed. Currently both categories of decision are closely bound to our system of income compensation; proposing to upend that system without considering the effects on everything else seems somewhat less than half-baked. quote:
And, why shouldn't we be nicer to each other?
Indeed we should!* But trite platitudes are not a basis for a movement, any more than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a basis for a system of government.
*Most of us, anyway. Some of us are already nice enough, thank you very much. (You know who you are. You should ease up a little and stop making the rest of us look bad.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
On the subject of whether people wouldn't work if they weren't afraid of starvation:
MINCOME.
I am not responsible for the name.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the subject of whether people wouldn't work if they weren't afraid of starvation:
MINCOME.
That's not something I've ever said. What I've said is that people are considerably less likely to work if their income would be exactly the same either way (i.e. "to each according to their needs").
In that experiment people still had the chance to earn as much as they were capable of, it's just that the minimum amount anyone would receive was set at a given value. In other words, it emphatically was not a means of eliminating inequality.
If you offer everyone a minimum income of £10,000 with no upper income limit, then I wouldn't quit my job because I'm earning over three times that amount. But if you offer everyone £10,000 full stop, such that I'm not going to get a penny more or less whether I work or not, then I'd quit my job so fast the chair would still be spinning when I got home.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
By DocTor:
quote:
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
And really, income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
By DocTor:
quote:
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
And really, income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
An empty belly has no ears.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Apologies, Doc Tor. I used your quote to address Marvin. The follow up comment was also addressed to him, not answering your quote.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
It is, however, the subject of this thread. As repeatedly confirmed by the OPer.
quote:
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
It's not entirely surprising that giving everyone a minimum income would reduce social problems - especially when one considers that on one level, crime is just another job.
quote:
income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
No, it's about some people earning more than others. Why they earn more is a secondary issue at best.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
[ 06. November 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
...*tangent* at first I read that as a clever-if-dated partisan slam on Bill Clinton...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Oh, I missed that possibility completely, I'm afraid- whatever the original was just didn't get onto my radar!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
I'd have said its more that the right thinks in terms of individuals, while the left thinks in terms of society as a whole.
It follows that if something increases individual freedom but has negative societal effects the right will support it and the left will oppose it, and if something has positive social effects but decreases individual freedom then the left will support it and the right will oppose it. I think it's pretty clear where the subject of inequality falls on that spectrum...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
"The right thinks in terms of individuals" is quite apposite.
There are rich individuals, whose rights and freedoms need to be protected at all costs, and then there are the-rest-of-us individuals, whose ability to work together to resist the powerful must be prevented at all costs.
The Right only sees us as individuals as lions see a wildebeest that's been separated from the herd: dinner.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Whereas the Left sees us as a uniform mass of workers, not unlike a nest of ants. The good of the society is the only concern, and individual freedom is an unnecessary irrelevance.
Or, and here's an idea, we could both quit using unhelpful biased stereotypes and actually have a discussion. What do you think?
The way I see it - and this is a very simplified view - the left says "what good is freedom if you have no food" and the right says "what good is food if you have no freedom". Now, obviously it's better to have both food AND freedom, but which of the two is more important is a legitimate political question with no immediately obvious "correct answer".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The way I see it - and this is a very simplified view - the left says "what good is freedom if you have no food" and the right says "what good is food if you have no freedom".
I'd put it another way.
The left says, what good is the freedom to swing my fists if I don't have the freedom not to be punched by people who are bigger and stronger than me.
The right says, what good is the freedom to swing my fists if people who are smaller and weaker than me have the freedom not to be punched.
The right generally speaking disapproves of the freedom to form and join a union. The right disapproves of the freedom to strike. The right disapproves of the freedom to immigrate.
Generally speaking, the right believes chiefly in those freedoms that you need to have money already in order to make use of.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oooooooh! That last line.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Dafyd:
How do you define "the Right" other than "those bastards you hate 'cause they're really mean and horrible".
Can you offer a value-free definition of "right"?
I agree with MTM that it helps to get away from stereotypes. If you cannot accept that there are people of good faith who are to the right, then there's no future for discussion.
As I said early on, people of the right and the left (of good faith) are trying to maximise two things which both hold dear and most think are incompatible: freedom to act and equitable distribution of wealth.
Most people believe the end result has to be compromise, and most people are not capitalist or socialist for everything, rather believing that some aspects of society lend themselves to a market model (like consumer goods) and others don't (like the Armed Forces).
I think that the difference is that those on the right would attach a higher value to freedom to act (although it's more lefties that favour things like liberalisation of drug laws). But it is wrong to suggest that The Right is always against central co-operation and control or that The Left is somehow against personal freedom.
Which is why moderate Tories and Labour supporters tend to agree on a large swathe of policies.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
I'd have said its more that the right thinks in terms of individuals, while the left thinks in terms of society as a whole.
I think that the Right does tend to think in terms of individuals, and produces accounts of what happens that privilege the idea of individual agency. The Left tends to produce accounts that emphasise structures and contexts. This is not univerally true, of course: in particular, traditional conservatives do think about structures, but as the most influential people on the Right, in modern Britain and the Anglosphere at least, are liberals, they do tend to see the world in terms of individual agency.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
