> > > I do not believe that the market economy by itself is doing that
> > > sufficiently.
> > Do you mean to imply that some re-distributive scheme could
> > have been better applied in recent decades? If not, you're
> > certainly making it sound that way. It definitely sounds
> > as though you have a better idea, at least for the future.
> I mean that I am gradually coming to believe that something like
> a guaranteed income is logical and necessary.
The "market economy" doesn't perform well because it's messed with by any
number of legislative entities who have no real idea as to what the final
results will be. If it was left alone, most of the horrible messes you see
resulting from "market conditions" (really "interference conditions")
wouldn't be happening.
But on to the point I was going to make: why is it a good idea to sabotage
and bypass the primary motivations for people or segments of society to
improve themselves by creating a system in which there is little incentive
to improve? Raw capitalism may not be a bed of roses, but it certainly syncs
with ape nature, minimal cost of implementation, and inclining the most
people to create the most improvements to quality of life.
If there's no risk, if a larger effort has to be made to rise above the
masses (i.e. above that guaranteed income), then whole sections of humanity
will fall in on themselves. Look at France over the last 10 years if you
want an example. Guarantee income, you guarantee teaching people to fail
rather than to strive and improve.
Rights are a figment of the imagination, a consensual hallucination. The
more rights a society decides to create, the less fit the members of that
altruistic -- moving away from pure capitalism doesn't encourage the growth
of fine human beings.
selfish -- by screwing up all these people, you're slowing down
technological growth and thus shortening your own life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT