Now that I have read the piece of text properly, which I have quoted, and to
which I have replied below, I realise my error. What a silly person. Sorry,
Macbeth hath murdered sleep, the bastard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: true abundance?
> From Barbara's excellent post about what we do with "abundance":
> > [Damien writes: "...society will pay everyone, as an inalienable right,
> > basic minimum dividend drawn from the productivity and wealth of the
> > nation."--the problem with this is that society is made up of
> > Productivity and wealth don't appear unattached to human effort. In
> > to "draw" them and make them available for distribution, one must first
> > take them from the individuals who produced them--this is the
> > argument, and it's valid, I think, to the extent that current
> > of wealth reflects a morally justifiable process]
> I liked your post Barbara, and will probably respond usefully in the near
> future. This is merely a quibble...
> You seem to have used the above passage as justification/reference for the
> libertarian position that a guaranteed minimum income is a flawed idea,
> based on stealing from productive people and handing those stolen funds
> to others. I think you might find that Damien is not entirely supporting
> this position with the above paragraph; notice the very strong condition
> "...and it's valid, I think, to the extent that current distribution of
> wealth reflects a morally justifiable process". An entirely open question.
> wont presume to speak for Damien; perhaps he can expand on what he meant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:26 MDT