America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is accused of repressing minority rights and culture
In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.
The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.
In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.
Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.
advertisement
Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.
His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."
Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.
Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."
Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.
The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.
A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.
The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."
At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.
The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.
While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
More indepth Q&A on a rational health care system
Quote:
Now, I can't speak to healthcare coverage, because I am in the P&C business, but I can tell you that what DOES happen a lot of the times is that people will assume they have coverage for things that they do not, and then seek to reclaim those costs. That's more a function of not reading their policy than insurance companies trying to "screw" their customers.
Information asymmetry has a lot to do with this as well. Most average people can't understand the legal jargon that comprises insurance policies, and this benefits the insurer. Tell people that they're covered for any treatment that is medically necessary, and then let them pay for it through their taxes, probably at a rate that costs them less than the equivalent private insurance package.
Quote:
And again, I feel the need to remind you that very rarely will you have lawyers directly under the employ of an insurance company. Insurance companies will generally contract panel councils, and many insurance companies use the same law firms.
Whether it's one lawyer working on 100 cases, or two lawyers each working on 50, it's the same thing. Whether it's an in-house lawyer or a contracted council, it makes no difference (in fact, it might actually cost more).
Quote:
I absolutely agree with you, which is why I suggest that a big factor in removing these costs is to modify the way that torts are handled.
This would not absolve your system of its vast bureaucratic waste.
Quote:
Of course it does! Same population will, generally, require the same amount of manpower to file claims, determine scope of coverage, underwrite, etc. All you'd be doing is bring it under one umbrella. 10 underwriters doing the same amount of work is going to cost the same whether they are working for 2 companies or 10.
You're misguided here, Todd. Economies of scale. Fewer secretaries, fewer facilities, fewer everything, basically.
Quote:
Excuse me? Did you just suggest that I don't have a brain?
No. What I meant to say was "Every health policy expert with a brain knows that they need some sort of socialized, universal health insurance system." I apologize for implying otherwise.
EDIT: Addressed Phred's comments
Phred wrote:
[Talking about the the volume of diagnostic imaging machines.]
Equipment density is a poor barometre of quality. A much more important and appropriate question is 'do you have enough equipment to meet the needs of your population.' If you have an MRI machine for everyone in your city, your system is costing you way too much.
Quote:
Then of course there was the widely reported case that ended up in front of the Quebec Supreme Court, where some guy whose name escapes me at the moment tried to recover from the Canadian government the costs of his travel and treatment to England (I think it was) because he would have had to wait some absurd amount of time to have it done in Canada, and it was a condition where time was of the essence.
You have your facts in a knot. The procedure in question was elective. In other words, the person's doctors decided that time was not of the essence.
Quote:
I see a lot of arguing over "efficiency" here. In medicine, "efficiency" is not a cut and dried concept. Are we talking dollars and cents efficiency or timeliness efficiency? Because if it is the latter, the US system wins hands down.
No, the U.S. system loses. Why? Forty million people wait forever.
Quote:
And even if we are talking dollars and cents, don't forget that in Canada, prescription drugs are not covered. So someone waiting a year and a half for an "elective" surgery (a knee operation or hip operation, say) could burn through thousands of dollars of pain medication waiting for the surgery.
The system is not perfect. We need a national pharmacare program. Prescription drugs provided in-hospital are covered under medicare.
Quote:
In the meantime, they might also be disabled to the point they cannot work properly, or even at all, which means extra costs to other government redistribution programs such as workman's compensation or disabilty benefits or unemployment insurance or whatever.
These issues are factored into the physicians decision regarding the urgency of the procedure.
Quote:
Then of course there is the whole quality of life issue -- how do you assign a dollar value to that? It's no picnic being semi-crippled and suffering chronic pain for months (or in some cases a year or more) on end.
Unless, of course, you're poor and can't afford insurance at all?
Again, all of these issues are factored into urgency.
Quote:
It is this last reason more than any other that leads so many Canadians to cross the border and get themselves treatment immediately. Sure, they could wait and eventually get it done for "free" in Canada. Did you ever stop to think WHY so many prefer to spend the money to get fixed up NOW rather than wait months and save a couple thousand bucks? Do you think it is because these people are stupid or something? Remember, the folks who get this work done outside Canada never get reimbursed for their expenses -- they still pay the same taxes as everyone else. Yet they dig into their own pockets regardless. These people get socked twice -- they are paying US prices for the medical care they actually receive AND they are paying Canadian prices for that same care which was never delivered. But to these folks, it's worth it.
Would you like to support any of your claims with any evidence? Do you have figures that indicate how many Canadians cross the border for medical care annually?
If a patient has to wait an inappropriate length of time for service, it is the result of a medical error by a physician. Medical error is as likely to happen under one system structure as it is under another.
Now, I can't speak to healthcare coverage, because I am in the P&C business, but I can tell you that what DOES happen a lot of the times is that people will assume they have coverage for things that they do not, and then seek to reclaim those costs. That's more a function of not reading their policy than insurance companies trying to "screw" their customers.
Information asymmetry has a lot to do with this as well. Most average people can't understand the legal jargon that comprises insurance policies, and this benefits the insurer. Tell people that they're covered for any treatment that is medically necessary, and then let them pay for it through their taxes, probably at a rate that costs them less than the equivalent private insurance package.
Quote:
And again, I feel the need to remind you that very rarely will you have lawyers directly under the employ of an insurance company. Insurance companies will generally contract panel councils, and many insurance companies use the same law firms.
Whether it's one lawyer working on 100 cases, or two lawyers each working on 50, it's the same thing. Whether it's an in-house lawyer or a contracted council, it makes no difference (in fact, it might actually cost more).
Quote:
I absolutely agree with you, which is why I suggest that a big factor in removing these costs is to modify the way that torts are handled.
This would not absolve your system of its vast bureaucratic waste.
Quote:
Of course it does! Same population will, generally, require the same amount of manpower to file claims, determine scope of coverage, underwrite, etc. All you'd be doing is bring it under one umbrella. 10 underwriters doing the same amount of work is going to cost the same whether they are working for 2 companies or 10.
You're misguided here, Todd. Economies of scale. Fewer secretaries, fewer facilities, fewer everything, basically.
Quote:
Excuse me? Did you just suggest that I don't have a brain?
No. What I meant to say was "Every health policy expert with a brain knows that they need some sort of socialized, universal health insurance system." I apologize for implying otherwise.
EDIT: Addressed Phred's comments
Phred wrote:
[Talking about the the volume of diagnostic imaging machines.]
Equipment density is a poor barometre of quality. A much more important and appropriate question is 'do you have enough equipment to meet the needs of your population.' If you have an MRI machine for everyone in your city, your system is costing you way too much.
Quote:
Then of course there was the widely reported case that ended up in front of the Quebec Supreme Court, where some guy whose name escapes me at the moment tried to recover from the Canadian government the costs of his travel and treatment to England (I think it was) because he would have had to wait some absurd amount of time to have it done in Canada, and it was a condition where time was of the essence.
You have your facts in a knot. The procedure in question was elective. In other words, the person's doctors decided that time was not of the essence.
Quote:
I see a lot of arguing over "efficiency" here. In medicine, "efficiency" is not a cut and dried concept. Are we talking dollars and cents efficiency or timeliness efficiency? Because if it is the latter, the US system wins hands down.
No, the U.S. system loses. Why? Forty million people wait forever.
Quote:
And even if we are talking dollars and cents, don't forget that in Canada, prescription drugs are not covered. So someone waiting a year and a half for an "elective" surgery (a knee operation or hip operation, say) could burn through thousands of dollars of pain medication waiting for the surgery.
The system is not perfect. We need a national pharmacare program. Prescription drugs provided in-hospital are covered under medicare.
Quote:
In the meantime, they might also be disabled to the point they cannot work properly, or even at all, which means extra costs to other government redistribution programs such as workman's compensation or disabilty benefits or unemployment insurance or whatever.
These issues are factored into the physicians decision regarding the urgency of the procedure.
Quote:
Then of course there is the whole quality of life issue -- how do you assign a dollar value to that? It's no picnic being semi-crippled and suffering chronic pain for months (or in some cases a year or more) on end.
Unless, of course, you're poor and can't afford insurance at all?
Again, all of these issues are factored into urgency.
Quote:
It is this last reason more than any other that leads so many Canadians to cross the border and get themselves treatment immediately. Sure, they could wait and eventually get it done for "free" in Canada. Did you ever stop to think WHY so many prefer to spend the money to get fixed up NOW rather than wait months and save a couple thousand bucks? Do you think it is because these people are stupid or something? Remember, the folks who get this work done outside Canada never get reimbursed for their expenses -- they still pay the same taxes as everyone else. Yet they dig into their own pockets regardless. These people get socked twice -- they are paying US prices for the medical care they actually receive AND they are paying Canadian prices for that same care which was never delivered. But to these folks, it's worth it.
Would you like to support any of your claims with any evidence? Do you have figures that indicate how many Canadians cross the border for medical care annually?
If a patient has to wait an inappropriate length of time for service, it is the result of a medical error by a physician. Medical error is as likely to happen under one system structure as it is under another.
Q & A on american healthcare
Todd wrote:
There are always going to be lawyers, period. Nationalizing one industry is not going to stop Tort cases, nor will it even begin to lower the costs of lawyer fees (especially if those lawyers continue to work on a contingency). All nationalizing it will do is mask those costs by distributing it over a wider base. I prefer to control the costs in the first place.
In a profit driven system, there are substantial incentives for administrative build-up. Insurers invest millions in trying to deny their clients insurance. They hire investigation agencies to follow their clients around to see if they're actually hurt. They sue whenever they think they might be able to convince a court not to support their denial of claim. The most important issue, however, is that there are literally thousands of these companies doing the same thing. This is why administration costs are so ridiculously high.
Quote:
You forgot the single biggest market: Patients suing doctors. That's precisely why Doctors carry malpractice and liability insurance (which, to the best of my knowledge, we are not suggesting to nationalize), and a SIGNIFICANT reason that the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed. Are you honestly suggesting these kinds of suits would dissapear by nationalizing it? The only way that would be true is if you blanket the industry with sovereign immunity, which doesn't solve the problem at all, it just makes it impossible to seek retribution.
This seems to be a uniquely American problem. Unless changes are made to your legal system, its unlikely that this would ever be solved under any system. This, however, does not change the fact that administration costs would fall substantially if you switched to a single-payer system.
Quote:
There is nothing to suggest that this would change in the slightest just by nationalizing the industry. You'd still have all the above claim scenarios, with equally many lawyers.
You wouldn't have near as many lawyers or near as much administrative redundancy.
Quote:
Yes, it's called "Claims". It'd be hard to run an insurance company with no department to determine coverage and claim processing.
I'm not talking about insurance claims, I'm talking about lawsuits.
ieatfood wrote:
I think that this report is kinda pointless. It looks at things like waiting times in emergency room. Wow. I mean wow. When you're sick, is that all you care about? Waiting times?
How bout measuring the actual care you get? How bout seeing who gets the more advanced procedures? Who develops the better technology? When people get sick, do foreigners come to America to get state of the art care or do Americans goto foreign countries?
Do you have any evidence that you'd like to put forward to support these claims? Are you certain that Canadians and Germans and the French and Swedes and Norwegians flock to the United States for every medical procedure? I, personally, don't know a single person who has ever had to leave Canada for any sort of treatment whatsoever. Sometimes, here in Canada, there is cross-province transfer of patients, but this is usually an efficiency issue. If you live in a small province, there are certain procedures that are very costly to provide. It is therefore more cost effective to provide extremely specialized services in larger centres and bring the patients to them.
Quote:
How about loooking at the waiting times that actually matter--like how long you have to wait to get an MRI.
First you say that wait times don't matter, and now picking and choosing the wait times that are important? What is your rationale?
Quote:
THe US has the best healthcare system in the world. It's not perfect. But it's the best.
This seems like one of those pie in the sky beliefs based on misguided patriotism.
Potemkin wrote:
I think the biggest single obstacle in the way of socialised health care in America is ideological rather than technical or economic.
This is definitely true. The Uwe Reinhardt excerpt that I started the 'Huge Debate' thread with speaks to this directly. Everyone in America with a brain knows that they need some sort of socialized, universal health insurance system, but everyone has their own conception of what it should look like. In typically American fashion, if each individual can't have the exact system that they desire, they default to the current non-system.
Quote:
Because of the perceived equality of opportunity in America (which does not exist to anything like the same extent in Britain), the assumption is that the poor deserve to be poor - they aren't smart enough, or didn't work hard enough, or something. The British do not make that assumption - there are too many examples of stupid aristocrats and intelligent workers for that assumption to stick.
Reinhardt actually speaks to this as well, in that same excerpt. He cites these as the two main reasons for the American refusal to improve their health system: 1) the perception that poor people don't deserve help because they chose to be poor; and 2) policy makers won't reform the system unless the new system looks exactly like they want it to.
There are always going to be lawyers, period. Nationalizing one industry is not going to stop Tort cases, nor will it even begin to lower the costs of lawyer fees (especially if those lawyers continue to work on a contingency). All nationalizing it will do is mask those costs by distributing it over a wider base. I prefer to control the costs in the first place.
In a profit driven system, there are substantial incentives for administrative build-up. Insurers invest millions in trying to deny their clients insurance. They hire investigation agencies to follow their clients around to see if they're actually hurt. They sue whenever they think they might be able to convince a court not to support their denial of claim. The most important issue, however, is that there are literally thousands of these companies doing the same thing. This is why administration costs are so ridiculously high.
Quote:
You forgot the single biggest market: Patients suing doctors. That's precisely why Doctors carry malpractice and liability insurance (which, to the best of my knowledge, we are not suggesting to nationalize), and a SIGNIFICANT reason that the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed. Are you honestly suggesting these kinds of suits would dissapear by nationalizing it? The only way that would be true is if you blanket the industry with sovereign immunity, which doesn't solve the problem at all, it just makes it impossible to seek retribution.
This seems to be a uniquely American problem. Unless changes are made to your legal system, its unlikely that this would ever be solved under any system. This, however, does not change the fact that administration costs would fall substantially if you switched to a single-payer system.
Quote:
There is nothing to suggest that this would change in the slightest just by nationalizing the industry. You'd still have all the above claim scenarios, with equally many lawyers.
You wouldn't have near as many lawyers or near as much administrative redundancy.
Quote:
Yes, it's called "Claims". It'd be hard to run an insurance company with no department to determine coverage and claim processing.
I'm not talking about insurance claims, I'm talking about lawsuits.
ieatfood wrote:
I think that this report is kinda pointless. It looks at things like waiting times in emergency room. Wow. I mean wow. When you're sick, is that all you care about? Waiting times?
How bout measuring the actual care you get? How bout seeing who gets the more advanced procedures? Who develops the better technology? When people get sick, do foreigners come to America to get state of the art care or do Americans goto foreign countries?
Do you have any evidence that you'd like to put forward to support these claims? Are you certain that Canadians and Germans and the French and Swedes and Norwegians flock to the United States for every medical procedure? I, personally, don't know a single person who has ever had to leave Canada for any sort of treatment whatsoever. Sometimes, here in Canada, there is cross-province transfer of patients, but this is usually an efficiency issue. If you live in a small province, there are certain procedures that are very costly to provide. It is therefore more cost effective to provide extremely specialized services in larger centres and bring the patients to them.
Quote:
How about loooking at the waiting times that actually matter--like how long you have to wait to get an MRI.
First you say that wait times don't matter, and now picking and choosing the wait times that are important? What is your rationale?
Quote:
THe US has the best healthcare system in the world. It's not perfect. But it's the best.
This seems like one of those pie in the sky beliefs based on misguided patriotism.
Potemkin wrote:
I think the biggest single obstacle in the way of socialised health care in America is ideological rather than technical or economic.
This is definitely true. The Uwe Reinhardt excerpt that I started the 'Huge Debate' thread with speaks to this directly. Everyone in America with a brain knows that they need some sort of socialized, universal health insurance system, but everyone has their own conception of what it should look like. In typically American fashion, if each individual can't have the exact system that they desire, they default to the current non-system.
Quote:
Because of the perceived equality of opportunity in America (which does not exist to anything like the same extent in Britain), the assumption is that the poor deserve to be poor - they aren't smart enough, or didn't work hard enough, or something. The British do not make that assumption - there are too many examples of stupid aristocrats and intelligent workers for that assumption to stick.
Reinhardt actually speaks to this as well, in that same excerpt. He cites these as the two main reasons for the American refusal to improve their health system: 1) the perception that poor people don't deserve help because they chose to be poor; and 2) policy makers won't reform the system unless the new system looks exactly like they want it to.
Obstacles to Socialized Healthcare
I think the biggest single obstacle in the way of socialised health care in America is ideological rather than technical or economic. In Britain, the NHS is enormously popular, and has been since it was set up in 1948. The reason for that popularity is not its efficiency (though it's more efficient than the American system), but the fact that it provides equal health care to everyone, no matter what their relative social or economic status. It is, in principle, free at the point of delivery. The rigid semi-feudal class system in Britain means that the British people have never lost sight of equality as a social goal to aspire to, and as a moral ideal. Because of the perceived equality of opportunity in America (which does not exist to anything like the same extent in Britain), the assumption is that the poor deserve to be poor - they aren't smart enough, or didn't work hard enough, or something. The British do not make that assumption - there are too many examples of stupid aristocrats and intelligent workers for that assumption to stick. Somebody's wealth or social status has no connection with their level of intelligence or how hard they work. To apportion health care - which their lives may depend upon - on the basis of wealth or social status (which is what a privatised health care system does) is therefore perceived in Britain as a terrible injustice, and essentially immoral. In America, it is perceived as entirely just and entirely moral. Until that ideological barrier is overcome, there's no point debating the relative economic merits or demerits of a privatised or socialised health care system - socialised health care was not adopted in Britain because we thought it would be more efficient, but because we thought it would be more just.
Q&A session with a cold hearted capitalist
Quote:
Cause your plan sounds like cuba to me so far.
If you think these things sound like Cuba I don't believe our debate is going to go very far. For example:
Quote:
Simply taxing 100% of everything above X income? Seizing property? Nationalizing major corporations?
None of these things are realistic goals, at least in the short term. Nationalizing major corporations wouldn't work in most cases view; instead, we could strive for worker ownership of firms, or follow Roemer's plan of coupon capitalism where each person owns a certain ammount of stock, which she can trade but cannot sell, and hence ownership of them is technically very widely dispersed. The property is not seized, the government slowly buys the stocks from private companies and distributes them to individuals. His plan can be called 'coupon capitalism' or considered a variety of market socialism, of which there are many. It is detailed in his book "A Future For Socialism".
A 100% tax rate is not a reasonable plan right now, it won't be 20 years from now, and it might never be. For right now, I would argue, we should work on turning regressive taxes (sales tax and social security tax) into non regressive taxes. making the income tax more progressive is a possibility. Keeping the inheritance tax would be good. I think it may be time to strongly consider something like a wealth tax, to fund redistribution of assets, instead of money.
Quote:
Because public schools currently have approximate equality by and large.
I can't believe we live in the same country. Based on what I've read and seen first hand about schools we have basically two school systems: one, in wealthy areas, which works rather well, and another, in poor areas, which works, well, poorly.
The first thing we should do in this area is eliminate the property/locality based way of funding schools and replace it with a national one which funds schools at an equal level.
I have few problems with private schools as long as all people can afford to go to all of the ones that are in existensce.
Quote:
How will you do this in ways that don't require iron-fisted coercion and imprisonment of "violators", and in ways that don't utterly destroy our economy?
Using the first few policies I mentioned helps, having a proportional represtation system helps, doing what countries in western europe have done, particularly Sweden, helps, allowing sympathy strikes helps, encouraging worker owned firms as well as Employee shared ownership firms helps, campaign finance reform on a massive level helps, seriously there are all sorts of indirect ways to go about this.
Quote:
high-sounding axioms but what is *your* plan?
I am arguing for general principles of justice that should be guiding social and economic policy. What exactly the best way is to live up to those principles depends a lot on circumstances. I've given details on two plans I agree with on this forum in the past.
Quote:
Maybe I'm just stupid, can you explain how you will "redistribute income and wealth" and "increas the power of labor relative to capital" in a way that doesn't trample on freedoms and brutally suppress individual initiative and send our nation into penury? Please explain.
There is little evidence that either redistribution or increasing the power of labor 'depress individual initiative or send nations into penury'; the experience in several other democracies tells you this.
As for freedom, we must be using different definitions of freedom; you must seem to think the U.S. is a 'more free' country than Norway or Sweden or Japan.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UBI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this different from welfare I don't really know but ok.
Everybody gets it always, indefinitely, whether they are working or not. Not like welfare, where only certain people get it and a person loses the benefits if they get a job.
The ultimate justification of the UBI, as argued for by Van Parijis in his book "Real Freedom For All", is freedom, as the title suggests, the thing you seem to be concerned most about: the freedom to have time to engage in training and education, as well as the freedom to 'say no' to state agencies and employers, without being punished via matieral deprivation. It also reflects the commitment of 'real libertarianism' (Van Parijis is a 'left-libertarian', and has been one of many scholars to argue against the 'right wing' libertarian view of freedom which is prevalent on this board) to promoting freedom, conceived as a generic good; the real libertarian urges that we provide people with the resources they need to achieve their aims, whatever those aims are.
Here is a link to a description of the idea the idea[/url], and how it is supposed to help with some other concerns as well.
Edited by moorobot (05/31/06 09:00 AM)
Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Cause your plan sounds like cuba to me so far.
If you think these things sound like Cuba I don't believe our debate is going to go very far. For example:
Quote:
Simply taxing 100% of everything above X income? Seizing property? Nationalizing major corporations?
None of these things are realistic goals, at least in the short term. Nationalizing major corporations wouldn't work in most cases view; instead, we could strive for worker ownership of firms, or follow Roemer's plan of coupon capitalism where each person owns a certain ammount of stock, which she can trade but cannot sell, and hence ownership of them is technically very widely dispersed. The property is not seized, the government slowly buys the stocks from private companies and distributes them to individuals. His plan can be called 'coupon capitalism' or considered a variety of market socialism, of which there are many. It is detailed in his book "A Future For Socialism".
A 100% tax rate is not a reasonable plan right now, it won't be 20 years from now, and it might never be. For right now, I would argue, we should work on turning regressive taxes (sales tax and social security tax) into non regressive taxes. making the income tax more progressive is a possibility. Keeping the inheritance tax would be good. I think it may be time to strongly consider something like a wealth tax, to fund redistribution of assets, instead of money.
Quote:
Because public schools currently have approximate equality by and large.
I can't believe we live in the same country. Based on what I've read and seen first hand about schools we have basically two school systems: one, in wealthy areas, which works rather well, and another, in poor areas, which works, well, poorly.
The first thing we should do in this area is eliminate the property/locality based way of funding schools and replace it with a national one which funds schools at an equal level.
I have few problems with private schools as long as all people can afford to go to all of the ones that are in existensce.
Quote:
How will you do this in ways that don't require iron-fisted coercion and imprisonment of "violators", and in ways that don't utterly destroy our economy?
Using the first few policies I mentioned helps, having a proportional represtation system helps, doing what countries in western europe have done, particularly Sweden, helps, allowing sympathy strikes helps, encouraging worker owned firms as well as Employee shared ownership firms helps, campaign finance reform on a massive level helps, seriously there are all sorts of indirect ways to go about this.
Quote:
high-sounding axioms but what is *your* plan?
I am arguing for general principles of justice that should be guiding social and economic policy. What exactly the best way is to live up to those principles depends a lot on circumstances. I've given details on two plans I agree with on this forum in the past.
Quote:
Maybe I'm just stupid, can you explain how you will "redistribute income and wealth" and "increas the power of labor relative to capital" in a way that doesn't trample on freedoms and brutally suppress individual initiative and send our nation into penury? Please explain.
There is little evidence that either redistribution or increasing the power of labor 'depress individual initiative or send nations into penury'; the experience in several other democracies tells you this.
As for freedom, we must be using different definitions of freedom; you must seem to think the U.S. is a 'more free' country than Norway or Sweden or Japan.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UBI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this different from welfare I don't really know but ok.
Everybody gets it always, indefinitely, whether they are working or not. Not like welfare, where only certain people get it and a person loses the benefits if they get a job.
The ultimate justification of the UBI, as argued for by Van Parijis in his book "Real Freedom For All", is freedom, as the title suggests, the thing you seem to be concerned most about: the freedom to have time to engage in training and education, as well as the freedom to 'say no' to state agencies and employers, without being punished via matieral deprivation. It also reflects the commitment of 'real libertarianism' (Van Parijis is a 'left-libertarian', and has been one of many scholars to argue against the 'right wing' libertarian view of freedom which is prevalent on this board) to promoting freedom, conceived as a generic good; the real libertarian urges that we provide people with the resources they need to achieve their aims, whatever those aims are.
Here is a link to a description of the idea the idea[/url], and how it is supposed to help with some other concerns as well.
Edited by moorobot (05/31/06 09:00 AM)
Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Taxes are great
Until you do, since people can't 'own' something which doesn't exist, it can't be 'theft' because theft presupposes ownership.
You guys just assert it over and over, following the old and cheap political tactic of 'tell a lie enough times and eventually people start to believe it', without ever demonstarting that anybody legitmately owns pre-tax income in the U.S. today.
Example: How you think this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. (How can you own what the government produces, btw, if the government can't own what you produce?) Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible.
Or this:
Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy a car, pitching in with a loan that covered 40 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place. The same is true with all government services: they helped you in ways we can't imagine to earn income.
For example, if lawyers never recieved any schooling, I'm guessing they wouldn't have been able to be lawyers. But almost all at some point recieved there schooling from the government. It's impossible to seperate the two; an individual's income depends completely on an inseperable combination of her effort and the government's. Therefore government creates the income right now. It doesn't matter whether or not it could be different; as long as we don't live in anarchy already taxes are not theft.
Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.
Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.
You guys just assert it over and over, following the old and cheap political tactic of 'tell a lie enough times and eventually people start to believe it', without ever demonstarting that anybody legitmately owns pre-tax income in the U.S. today.
Example: How you think this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. (How can you own what the government produces, btw, if the government can't own what you produce?) Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible.
Or this:
Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy a car, pitching in with a loan that covered 40 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place. The same is true with all government services: they helped you in ways we can't imagine to earn income.
For example, if lawyers never recieved any schooling, I'm guessing they wouldn't have been able to be lawyers. But almost all at some point recieved there schooling from the government. It's impossible to seperate the two; an individual's income depends completely on an inseperable combination of her effort and the government's. Therefore government creates the income right now. It doesn't matter whether or not it could be different; as long as we don't live in anarchy already taxes are not theft.
Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.
Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.
Consumption and Spending
"Thirty years ago, a middle-class family with kids might have been content with a four-door sedan of modest size. Imagine the grown-up child of that family, with children of her own, facing the same decision. She might be tempted to say, "A 2,500 pund sedan was good enough for my mom, so it's good enough for me." But on today's roads, surrounded by 6,000 pound Lincoln Navigators and 7,500 pund Ford Excursions, a... Honda Civic doesn't simply look a lot smaller and frailer than it did in 1975. It's objectively more dangerous. The odds of being killed in a collision rise roughly fivefold if you're driving such a vehicle and the other party sits at the helm of a ford excusion. In sheer self-defense, you migh want a bulkier -and costlier-car than mom's." Robert H. Frank, "How the Middle Class Is Injured By Gains At The Top", in Inequality Matters edited by James Lardner and David A. Smith, pgs 138-149.
A second example is the housing market: median house prices depend not only on median incomes, but also income inequality in a neighborhood; that is, in more inegalitarian neighborhoods in America, the house values are far lower than in egalitarian neighborhoods, even when you adjust for median income. Worse still, better than average schooling means better than average education for one's children, and to get better than average schooling one has to pay higher than average property prices. The person who stays at the office for an extra 10 hours/week in order to buy a house in a better school distrit does not intentionally make it more difficult for others to achieve the same goal, but it is an inescapable consequence of her action.
According to Frank's work, inequality is creating an increasing number of situations in which people are forced to choose between unpleasant alternatives. Furthermore, he shows us that through a serious of decisions that make good sense for us individually, we are leading to a situation which makes little sense; another case of the paradox of rationality: individual actions that are rational in isolation leads to outcomes which are collectively irrational. In order to escape these problems, we must cooperate and work collectively.
As he puts it later on in the above quoted essay (pg. 148) "Buying a smaller than average vehicle means a greater risk of dying in an accident. Spending less on an interview suit means a greater risk of not landing the best job. Spending less than others on a house means a greater risk of sending your children to inferior schools. Yet when all spend more on heavier cars, more finely tailored suits, and larger houses, the results tend to be mutually offsetting, just as when all nations spend more on missles and bombs. Spending less frees up money for other pressing uses, but only if everyone does it."
A second example is the housing market: median house prices depend not only on median incomes, but also income inequality in a neighborhood; that is, in more inegalitarian neighborhoods in America, the house values are far lower than in egalitarian neighborhoods, even when you adjust for median income. Worse still, better than average schooling means better than average education for one's children, and to get better than average schooling one has to pay higher than average property prices. The person who stays at the office for an extra 10 hours/week in order to buy a house in a better school distrit does not intentionally make it more difficult for others to achieve the same goal, but it is an inescapable consequence of her action.
According to Frank's work, inequality is creating an increasing number of situations in which people are forced to choose between unpleasant alternatives. Furthermore, he shows us that through a serious of decisions that make good sense for us individually, we are leading to a situation which makes little sense; another case of the paradox of rationality: individual actions that are rational in isolation leads to outcomes which are collectively irrational. In order to escape these problems, we must cooperate and work collectively.
As he puts it later on in the above quoted essay (pg. 148) "Buying a smaller than average vehicle means a greater risk of dying in an accident. Spending less on an interview suit means a greater risk of not landing the best job. Spending less than others on a house means a greater risk of sending your children to inferior schools. Yet when all spend more on heavier cars, more finely tailored suits, and larger houses, the results tend to be mutually offsetting, just as when all nations spend more on missles and bombs. Spending less frees up money for other pressing uses, but only if everyone does it."
one in six billion? or more?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
she did not choose to be handicapped and therefore there is no legitmate reason why she alone should have to bear the costs of this handicap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody else decided to make her handicapped, so by *your own reasoning*, nobody else should have to bear those costs, either.
Notice the phrase she alone: we are all equally responsible for dealing with it, she has 1/6,000,000,000 of the responsibillity for dealing with it. Let us say that a disabled person who has not 'marketable' qualities starves to death because we (and by we I mean anybody who plays any role in creating or maintaining or benefits from that system i.e. everyone within the country's borders at least) create an economic system which does not allow us to tax anybody in order to ensure her survival when we could have created one where she survives: is this not highly unethical to you? Even if someone has no role in the creation of the system it is still generally agreed on that their is a duty to perform beneficience what it does not come at a great cost to us. responsibility for causing something and responsibility for dealing with the consequences of that thing are conceptually distinct.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly disagree with your assumption that these people are advancing "the rest of us".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't invent air conditioning, but my house is air conditioned.
I don't know how to build a car, but I have two of them in my garage.
I don't have a green thumb, but my kitchen is full of organic fruits, vegetables, and meats. I certainly don't know how to butcher a pig, but I was able to smoke a couple of racks of ribs yesterday.
Ok, so cooperation has economic benefits over trying to do everything on your own on a deserted island: obviously. But I think the powerful subjugate others more often than they liberate them, and the less talented benefit the talented by buying the products they make and working for them, thus providing them with profit and security. The inventors of these products need a market, and we are providing them with it: so the guy who invented air conditioning could not have made money off his invention without all of us to buy it nor all the people in history which increased technology and science to the point at which it was possible to invent an air conditioner and therefore it is not the case that he 'earned it' all by himself. So my phrasing is poor here but my point simply was that the less talented don't owe the talented any special favors for 'benefiting us'.
Quote:
Further, you said "You are the legitimate possessor of your talents, and are free to use them in accordance with your chosen talents" - but how can I be free to do what I want with my talents if others have claim to them? You claim that people can't be owned by others, but you also claim that people have legitimate claims to my production? How are those compatible?
First, note that I had made a mistake in wording there, as I posted two posts up from your post that I am replying to. And the pursuit of as much income one can accumulate regardless of the consequences for others, even if that leads to massive inequalities and uneccessary suffering, is not a justice respecting project, and interests/preferences which require the violation justice have no value at all and so the prescensce of illegitimate preferences cannot distort our claims upon one another. Justice limits the admissible conceptions of the good, so that those conceptions the pursuit of which violate the principles of justice are ruled out absolutely: the claims to pursue inadmissible conceptions have no weight at all. Because unfair preferences never, as Rawls put it, enter into the social calculus, people's claims are made secure from the unreasonable desires of others. Equality in resources (or at least a well-regulated and very limited inequality) is required for justice, therefore projects which require a violation of equality in resources are unjust and not acceptable; it makes no sense to say that preventing injustice is unjust.
Let us say we agree that murder is wrong (I think we do, for the record). Here is hypothetical to illustrate: Joe wants to murder Bob simply because of the way Bob looks and has the ability to do so. Assume two possible worlds: one in which Joe will kill Bob because there is no law against murder and one in which Joe will not kill Bob because there is a law against it. So the law/government prevents Joe from killing Bob and that has limited his ability to pursue his choosen projects. However, since Joe's project was unjust, it is surely morally better, not worse, that his project went unfulfilled. Sometimes the only or best way to ensure a moral obligation is fulfilled is to make a law against it, and when that is the case that is what we should do.
A claim on someone is different from owning them like one does a slave. What I mean by claim is the corollary of moral obligation i.e. saying the disadvantaged have a claim on the more advantaged is simply another way of saying the advantaged have an obligation to the disadvantaged. Those who are good at the market game should be legally free to choose their own job, for example. What they are not ethically free to do, nor should they be legally free to do it in principle (pretending incentives don't exist) is to demand that they recieve more money in exchange for working that job. Saying that somebody is not free to murder another person does not mean the person who is not free to murder is suddenly a slave.
Look, the 'talented' benefit in from their talent immensely outside of the market already, and the highest paying jobs are almost always better intrinsically and in terms of power than lower paying jobs anyway; the untalented people who work at a factory for $9/hr would generally much rather be an NBA Center or a lawyer for $9/hr (if the jobs paid that much) if they could: but they do not have that market power so they cannot do so. Why should we in principle have a system where those who already gain the most from the world gain even more? In fact some have made good arguments that the naturally/socially advantaged should in theory be paid less than those who are less advantaged.
Finally, the ability to be productive and to gain money requires far more than one's own talents. As I mentioned before, it requires the existensce of others to buy that product, science and technology created long ago, schooling etc. Most importantly, market exchanges require more than the exercise of self-owned powers: they also involve legal rights (or in an AC society we would have to say they have a moral right here to defend your position) over things , external goods, and these things are not just created out of nothing by our self-owned powers. If I own some land, I may have improved the land, through the use of my self-owned powers. But I did not create the land, and so my title to the land (and hence my right to use the land in market exchanges) cannot be grounded solely in exercise of my self-owned powers. Self-owned powers alone on an island without any natural resources will never get you anywhere will they?
Until you show that individuals have a moral right over things in general and the things they are using to make money in specific; a moral right to own them as well as there self-owned powers (neither of which you have shown), you have not shown that redistribution is morally wrong.
Indeed, there is a long line of libertarians sometimes called 'left-libertarians', from Thomas Paine, Henry George, and Leon Wallras in the 18th/19th centuries, and defended today by Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne, who start from the premiss of self-ownership but recognize the insumountable difficulites in justifying unequal appropriation of the world, and so accept natinalization or equalization of resources, or compensation for those left propertyless.
And I don't seek to subjugate or cripple anyone: what I want is for everyone to have a fair share of resources and liberties with which to control the essential features of one's life; I want people to be EQUALLY free, I don't want some people to be more or less free than anyone else. Libertarians only want those with the ability to do well in the market to have real control over their lives. Self-determination for all is what I want, not just a few: and the market by itself provides it for only a few.
Taxation for redistribution will only seem to be 'subjugating' someone if it is morally wrong. Once we realize that redistribution is a required part of treating people as equals, then it will serve to promote, rather than attack, our sense of dignity. Furthermore, being subject to taxation on the rewards that accrue from one's undeserved talents does not seriously or unfairly impair one's substantive self-ownership-those who are taxed in the egalitarian planner still have at least a fair share of resources with which to control the essential features of their life.
Redistibution does not subjugate people or cripple people. It unsubjugates and uncripples those who being subjugated by the market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
she did not choose to be handicapped and therefore there is no legitmate reason why she alone should have to bear the costs of this handicap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody else decided to make her handicapped, so by *your own reasoning*, nobody else should have to bear those costs, either.
Notice the phrase she alone: we are all equally responsible for dealing with it, she has 1/6,000,000,000 of the responsibillity for dealing with it. Let us say that a disabled person who has not 'marketable' qualities starves to death because we (and by we I mean anybody who plays any role in creating or maintaining or benefits from that system i.e. everyone within the country's borders at least) create an economic system which does not allow us to tax anybody in order to ensure her survival when we could have created one where she survives: is this not highly unethical to you? Even if someone has no role in the creation of the system it is still generally agreed on that their is a duty to perform beneficience what it does not come at a great cost to us. responsibility for causing something and responsibility for dealing with the consequences of that thing are conceptually distinct.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly disagree with your assumption that these people are advancing "the rest of us".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't invent air conditioning, but my house is air conditioned.
I don't know how to build a car, but I have two of them in my garage.
I don't have a green thumb, but my kitchen is full of organic fruits, vegetables, and meats. I certainly don't know how to butcher a pig, but I was able to smoke a couple of racks of ribs yesterday.
Ok, so cooperation has economic benefits over trying to do everything on your own on a deserted island: obviously. But I think the powerful subjugate others more often than they liberate them, and the less talented benefit the talented by buying the products they make and working for them, thus providing them with profit and security. The inventors of these products need a market, and we are providing them with it: so the guy who invented air conditioning could not have made money off his invention without all of us to buy it nor all the people in history which increased technology and science to the point at which it was possible to invent an air conditioner and therefore it is not the case that he 'earned it' all by himself. So my phrasing is poor here but my point simply was that the less talented don't owe the talented any special favors for 'benefiting us'.
Quote:
Further, you said "You are the legitimate possessor of your talents, and are free to use them in accordance with your chosen talents" - but how can I be free to do what I want with my talents if others have claim to them? You claim that people can't be owned by others, but you also claim that people have legitimate claims to my production? How are those compatible?
First, note that I had made a mistake in wording there, as I posted two posts up from your post that I am replying to. And the pursuit of as much income one can accumulate regardless of the consequences for others, even if that leads to massive inequalities and uneccessary suffering, is not a justice respecting project, and interests/preferences which require the violation justice have no value at all and so the prescensce of illegitimate preferences cannot distort our claims upon one another. Justice limits the admissible conceptions of the good, so that those conceptions the pursuit of which violate the principles of justice are ruled out absolutely: the claims to pursue inadmissible conceptions have no weight at all. Because unfair preferences never, as Rawls put it, enter into the social calculus, people's claims are made secure from the unreasonable desires of others. Equality in resources (or at least a well-regulated and very limited inequality) is required for justice, therefore projects which require a violation of equality in resources are unjust and not acceptable; it makes no sense to say that preventing injustice is unjust.
Let us say we agree that murder is wrong (I think we do, for the record). Here is hypothetical to illustrate: Joe wants to murder Bob simply because of the way Bob looks and has the ability to do so. Assume two possible worlds: one in which Joe will kill Bob because there is no law against murder and one in which Joe will not kill Bob because there is a law against it. So the law/government prevents Joe from killing Bob and that has limited his ability to pursue his choosen projects. However, since Joe's project was unjust, it is surely morally better, not worse, that his project went unfulfilled. Sometimes the only or best way to ensure a moral obligation is fulfilled is to make a law against it, and when that is the case that is what we should do.
A claim on someone is different from owning them like one does a slave. What I mean by claim is the corollary of moral obligation i.e. saying the disadvantaged have a claim on the more advantaged is simply another way of saying the advantaged have an obligation to the disadvantaged. Those who are good at the market game should be legally free to choose their own job, for example. What they are not ethically free to do, nor should they be legally free to do it in principle (pretending incentives don't exist) is to demand that they recieve more money in exchange for working that job. Saying that somebody is not free to murder another person does not mean the person who is not free to murder is suddenly a slave.
Look, the 'talented' benefit in from their talent immensely outside of the market already, and the highest paying jobs are almost always better intrinsically and in terms of power than lower paying jobs anyway; the untalented people who work at a factory for $9/hr would generally much rather be an NBA Center or a lawyer for $9/hr (if the jobs paid that much) if they could: but they do not have that market power so they cannot do so. Why should we in principle have a system where those who already gain the most from the world gain even more? In fact some have made good arguments that the naturally/socially advantaged should in theory be paid less than those who are less advantaged.
Finally, the ability to be productive and to gain money requires far more than one's own talents. As I mentioned before, it requires the existensce of others to buy that product, science and technology created long ago, schooling etc. Most importantly, market exchanges require more than the exercise of self-owned powers: they also involve legal rights (or in an AC society we would have to say they have a moral right here to defend your position) over things , external goods, and these things are not just created out of nothing by our self-owned powers. If I own some land, I may have improved the land, through the use of my self-owned powers. But I did not create the land, and so my title to the land (and hence my right to use the land in market exchanges) cannot be grounded solely in exercise of my self-owned powers. Self-owned powers alone on an island without any natural resources will never get you anywhere will they?
Until you show that individuals have a moral right over things in general and the things they are using to make money in specific; a moral right to own them as well as there self-owned powers (neither of which you have shown), you have not shown that redistribution is morally wrong.
Indeed, there is a long line of libertarians sometimes called 'left-libertarians', from Thomas Paine, Henry George, and Leon Wallras in the 18th/19th centuries, and defended today by Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne, who start from the premiss of self-ownership but recognize the insumountable difficulites in justifying unequal appropriation of the world, and so accept natinalization or equalization of resources, or compensation for those left propertyless.
And I don't seek to subjugate or cripple anyone: what I want is for everyone to have a fair share of resources and liberties with which to control the essential features of one's life; I want people to be EQUALLY free, I don't want some people to be more or less free than anyone else. Libertarians only want those with the ability to do well in the market to have real control over their lives. Self-determination for all is what I want, not just a few: and the market by itself provides it for only a few.
Taxation for redistribution will only seem to be 'subjugating' someone if it is morally wrong. Once we realize that redistribution is a required part of treating people as equals, then it will serve to promote, rather than attack, our sense of dignity. Furthermore, being subject to taxation on the rewards that accrue from one's undeserved talents does not seriously or unfairly impair one's substantive self-ownership-those who are taxed in the egalitarian planner still have at least a fair share of resources with which to control the essential features of their life.
Redistibution does not subjugate people or cripple people. It unsubjugates and uncripples those who being subjugated by the market.
Question regarding redistrubtion
"Redistribution NECESSARILY decreases productivity.
It is always done the same way: tax the rich more, taxc the poor less, give some money to the poor. In addition to the resources being wasted in the process of doing this, productive incentives are harmed. Productive people get less reward for their productivity, so they are less motivated to be productive. Unproductive people get more reward for doing less, so they have less incentive to be productive.
Duh. "
In any case, I thought you would understand after my post about maximizing the population that productivity is not an end in itself but a tool for realizing other normative goals. If we agree that equality of opportunity or outcome is ethcially required, or that ethics require the distribution to be 'ambition sensitive' 'choice sensitive', then it is not an argument against doing so that because of some cost-benefit analysis fulfilling these requirements of justice would be costly.
Example of the FORM of argument you are presupposing:
1. Slavery is morally wrong.
2. However, making slavery illegal would decrease productivity (or flood the labor market in the south, or some other cost-benefit based argument).
3. Therefore, we should keep slavery illegal.
This is not to say we don't have a duty to bring about benefits. What it is to say is that we can only do so in ways that are morally permissible. So it is not in and of itself objection to this theory to say productivity is decreased under it.
I don't necessarily agree with his own reply to your objection, but here is part of Roemer's reply to this objection:
"There are two responses to this objection. The first relates to the incomplete definition of the equality-of-opportunity proposal that I have here made. In fact, the social policy I advocate is the one that equalizes opportunities (for income, say) at the highest possible levels. It is not possible to make this precise without going into some mathematical detail, but the idea is, roughly, that if a taxation policy results in opportunities for income being equalized at a very low level, then it is not the optimal policy. It is true that, under my proposal, mean income, that is, national income per capita, may well be below what it would be without any redistributive taxation: the benefit associated with that reduction in mean income would be increased equality of opportunity.
The second response to the objection is that, if you think social policy should attempt to maximize national income per capita, then you simply cannot advocate equality of opportunity. These two goals are just not simultaneously achievable. If, indeed, the highly skilled would to some degree withdraw their talents from productive use if their incomes were highly taxed, then maximizing mean income in a society could only be accomplished at the expense of equalizing opportunities. Thus, to the extent that our society measures its economic success by the rate of growth of mean income (i.e., GNP per capita), it is not measuring success by the extent to which society achieves equal-opportunity. If we rigorously adopt an equality-of-opportunity ethic, then we must redesign our statistical measures of what constitutes economically successful social policy."
It is always done the same way: tax the rich more, taxc the poor less, give some money to the poor. In addition to the resources being wasted in the process of doing this, productive incentives are harmed. Productive people get less reward for their productivity, so they are less motivated to be productive. Unproductive people get more reward for doing less, so they have less incentive to be productive.
Duh. "
In any case, I thought you would understand after my post about maximizing the population that productivity is not an end in itself but a tool for realizing other normative goals. If we agree that equality of opportunity or outcome is ethcially required, or that ethics require the distribution to be 'ambition sensitive' 'choice sensitive', then it is not an argument against doing so that because of some cost-benefit analysis fulfilling these requirements of justice would be costly.
Example of the FORM of argument you are presupposing:
1. Slavery is morally wrong.
2. However, making slavery illegal would decrease productivity (or flood the labor market in the south, or some other cost-benefit based argument).
3. Therefore, we should keep slavery illegal.
This is not to say we don't have a duty to bring about benefits. What it is to say is that we can only do so in ways that are morally permissible. So it is not in and of itself objection to this theory to say productivity is decreased under it.
I don't necessarily agree with his own reply to your objection, but here is part of Roemer's reply to this objection:
"There are two responses to this objection. The first relates to the incomplete definition of the equality-of-opportunity proposal that I have here made. In fact, the social policy I advocate is the one that equalizes opportunities (for income, say) at the highest possible levels. It is not possible to make this precise without going into some mathematical detail, but the idea is, roughly, that if a taxation policy results in opportunities for income being equalized at a very low level, then it is not the optimal policy. It is true that, under my proposal, mean income, that is, national income per capita, may well be below what it would be without any redistributive taxation: the benefit associated with that reduction in mean income would be increased equality of opportunity.
The second response to the objection is that, if you think social policy should attempt to maximize national income per capita, then you simply cannot advocate equality of opportunity. These two goals are just not simultaneously achievable. If, indeed, the highly skilled would to some degree withdraw their talents from productive use if their incomes were highly taxed, then maximizing mean income in a society could only be accomplished at the expense of equalizing opportunities. Thus, to the extent that our society measures its economic success by the rate of growth of mean income (i.e., GNP per capita), it is not measuring success by the extent to which society achieves equal-opportunity. If we rigorously adopt an equality-of-opportunity ethic, then we must redesign our statistical measures of what constitutes economically successful social policy."
On how society can function
Yale economist John Roemer has tried to come up with a way to make the distribution of resouces in the world, inter alia, more sensitive to choice and less sensitive to circumstances. This, incidentally, is one way, I believe, to bring about a more just society without much in the way disincentive effects, even if you believe monetary incentives are very important for productivity/effiecncy.
On his proposal, society would decide on a list of factors which are matters of circumstance rather than choice: e.g. age, gender, race, disability, and economic class and education level of one's parents. we then divide people into groups or 'types' based on thes factors. For example, one type would be 40-year old able-bodied white males whose parents were middle class and college educated; another type would consist of 40-year old able bodied black women whose parents recieved only primary education and were poor.
Now, within each type, people will vary dramatically in their income or wealth. Within the group of 40-year-old able-bodied white males whose parents were college educated (call them type A), most persons might earn around $70,000, with the top 10 percent earning $125,000 and the bottom 10 percent earning under $40,000. We assume that such inequalities within type A are due primarily to the choices people make. Since all members of type A share the same basic socio-economic and demographic circumstances, the inequalities we see within this group are likely to reflect different decisions about work, leisure, training, consumption, risk, and so on. So we will not seek to redistribute resources withing type A: we assume that the distributions within types are broadly ambition-sensitive: hard working and prudent white males of educated parents are not forced to 'subsidize' the choices of comarable white males with expensive tastes for leisure, or irresponsible habits.
Similarly, there will be considerable variation in income within the group of 40-year old black women from less-educated parents (call them type B). Perhaps the average income in this group is around $20,000, with the top 10 per cent earning $33,000, and the bottom 10 % earning 10,000. As before, hard-working and prudent black women should not be subsidizing the expensive or imprudent tastes of other black women.
So we accept for the sake of public policy that inequalities between types are ambition-sensitive. However, notice that there are enormous inequalities between types A and B, and these, by hypothesis at least, are due to circumstances not choices. Hard-working and prudent members at the 90th percentile of type A earn three as much as hard-working and prudent members at the 90th percentile of type B. That inequality cannot be explained or justified in terms of choices. People should be rewarded for above-average levels of work or prudence, but there is no reason why members of type A who exhibit these characteristics should be rewarded three times more than members of type B who exhibit the same characteristics.
Similarly, compare the reckless and indolent white male at teh 10th percentile of type A who earns four times as much as teh reckless and indolent black female at the 10th percentile of type B. People should pay for their choices, and so reckless and indolent people should accept that they will do less well than others who are prudent and hard working. But there is no reason why the costs of these imprudent decisions should be four times harsher for members of type B that for type A.
The goal of an 'egalitarian planner', therefore, is to accept inequality within types, but to equalize across types. thus everyone at the 90th percentile their type should have the same income, no matter what type they belong to; similarly at the 50th percentile or 10th percentile.. This will ensure that people are held responsible for their choices: hard-working and prudent members of each type will do much better than members with expensive or impudent tastes. But we will have neutralized the impact of the most important unchoosen circumstances; and incentives to productivity are not dramtically reduced.
For the sake of the reader, This summary draws very heavily on the summary of it found in the 2nd edition of Will Kymlicka's outstanding "Contemporary Political Philosophy", perhaps the best introduction to the subject in existensce, written by a highly distingusihed political theorist, btw.
If you are interested further in this, last time I checked, Roemer had links to more articles about this and related topics on his website, although some are largely technical in nature. Also, check out his book "Equality of Opportunity", (Harvard UP, 1998) for a more detailed explanation.
On his proposal, society would decide on a list of factors which are matters of circumstance rather than choice: e.g. age, gender, race, disability, and economic class and education level of one's parents. we then divide people into groups or 'types' based on thes factors. For example, one type would be 40-year old able-bodied white males whose parents were middle class and college educated; another type would consist of 40-year old able bodied black women whose parents recieved only primary education and were poor.
Now, within each type, people will vary dramatically in their income or wealth. Within the group of 40-year-old able-bodied white males whose parents were college educated (call them type A), most persons might earn around $70,000, with the top 10 percent earning $125,000 and the bottom 10 percent earning under $40,000. We assume that such inequalities within type A are due primarily to the choices people make. Since all members of type A share the same basic socio-economic and demographic circumstances, the inequalities we see within this group are likely to reflect different decisions about work, leisure, training, consumption, risk, and so on. So we will not seek to redistribute resources withing type A: we assume that the distributions within types are broadly ambition-sensitive: hard working and prudent white males of educated parents are not forced to 'subsidize' the choices of comarable white males with expensive tastes for leisure, or irresponsible habits.
Similarly, there will be considerable variation in income within the group of 40-year old black women from less-educated parents (call them type B). Perhaps the average income in this group is around $20,000, with the top 10 per cent earning $33,000, and the bottom 10 % earning 10,000. As before, hard-working and prudent black women should not be subsidizing the expensive or imprudent tastes of other black women.
So we accept for the sake of public policy that inequalities between types are ambition-sensitive. However, notice that there are enormous inequalities between types A and B, and these, by hypothesis at least, are due to circumstances not choices. Hard-working and prudent members at the 90th percentile of type A earn three as much as hard-working and prudent members at the 90th percentile of type B. That inequality cannot be explained or justified in terms of choices. People should be rewarded for above-average levels of work or prudence, but there is no reason why members of type A who exhibit these characteristics should be rewarded three times more than members of type B who exhibit the same characteristics.
Similarly, compare the reckless and indolent white male at teh 10th percentile of type A who earns four times as much as teh reckless and indolent black female at the 10th percentile of type B. People should pay for their choices, and so reckless and indolent people should accept that they will do less well than others who are prudent and hard working. But there is no reason why the costs of these imprudent decisions should be four times harsher for members of type B that for type A.
The goal of an 'egalitarian planner', therefore, is to accept inequality within types, but to equalize across types. thus everyone at the 90th percentile their type should have the same income, no matter what type they belong to; similarly at the 50th percentile or 10th percentile.. This will ensure that people are held responsible for their choices: hard-working and prudent members of each type will do much better than members with expensive or impudent tastes. But we will have neutralized the impact of the most important unchoosen circumstances; and incentives to productivity are not dramtically reduced.
For the sake of the reader, This summary draws very heavily on the summary of it found in the 2nd edition of Will Kymlicka's outstanding "Contemporary Political Philosophy", perhaps the best introduction to the subject in existensce, written by a highly distingusihed political theorist, btw.
If you are interested further in this, last time I checked, Roemer had links to more articles about this and related topics on his website, although some are largely technical in nature. Also, check out his book "Equality of Opportunity", (Harvard UP, 1998) for a more detailed explanation.
A response to a critic
" Let's say I'm a smart, talented, able-bodied skilled worker. I have more talents and am more capable of useful production than the average slob.
I live in a socialist system. The state/society takes whatever I produce and redistributes it to everyone else. I, in turn, recieve some division of the aggregate product of everyone else's labor.
If I work hard, I get the same amount as if I don't work very hard (or, depending on how much is being socialized, if I don't even work at all).
What incentive do I have to work?
"
There is another way to go about responding to your question, and since I alluded to it in another post I thought I could explain it in more detail:
A prominent factual defense of inequality traces it to a supposedly ineradicable human selfishness. The defense says that inequality is ensured by something as original to human nature as sin is, on the Christian view of original sin: people are by nature selfish, whether or not that is, like being a sinner, a bad thing to be and inequality is an unavoidable result of that selfishness whether or not inequality is unjust.
Being "selfish", here, means desiring things for oneself, and for those in one's immediate circle (e.g. family), and being disposed to act on that desire, even when the consequence is that one has (much) more than other people do, and could otherwise have had.
The selfishness defense of inequality has two premises. First, a human-nature premise: that people are by nature selfish. And second, a sociological premise, that if people are selfish then equality is impossible to achieve and our sustain.
My rejection of the human nature premise goes something like this, as it does for many socialists: social structures extensively shape the structure of motivation. There exists no underlying human nature which can be straightforwardly unselfish or selfish, or selfish in some fixed degree. I do not agree with those who respond to this premise by claiming there is no such thing as human nature: that is an unmatieralist position, but we are animals, with a particular biology and a psychology induced by it. But human nature is quite plastic with respect to motivation. It is true, in my view, that circumstances will have to propitious to a certain degree for humans to be unselfish in their attitude and behavior. It may be best to explain this by saying that the truth about human nature, in my view, can disclosed by the variable height of a line on a grap with circumstances on the horizontal and degrees of manfiested selfish orientation on the vertical. The right way to categorize human nature would be as a function, with circumstances as arguments and forms of behavior as values. And all you need to believe, in order to deny that human nature is selfish in a sense that it threatens the egalitarian project, is what I believe: that people would be relevantly unselfish in propitious circumstances, and such circumstances are acessible.
Some reject the sociological premise independently, I reject it in principle but I personally doubt we have reached the technological level to implement the independent solution to it in an acceptable way but I will state the common reply to this premise here due to its importance, in both the past and the future, in this debate:
It does not follow from the fact that if people are by nature selfish that inequality is inescapable. The social structure is soveriegn over not just motivation, but so, too, structure is soveriegn over the upshot of motivation. Even if people are selfish, the rules governing their interaction could nevertheless prevent their selfishness from issuing in inequality. Such rules might, for example, be enforced by a great mjaority, who were themselves selfishly or at least not altruistically motivated, and who would be at the short end of inequality in the abscensce of such rules.
I live in a socialist system. The state/society takes whatever I produce and redistributes it to everyone else. I, in turn, recieve some division of the aggregate product of everyone else's labor.
If I work hard, I get the same amount as if I don't work very hard (or, depending on how much is being socialized, if I don't even work at all).
What incentive do I have to work?
"
There is another way to go about responding to your question, and since I alluded to it in another post I thought I could explain it in more detail:
A prominent factual defense of inequality traces it to a supposedly ineradicable human selfishness. The defense says that inequality is ensured by something as original to human nature as sin is, on the Christian view of original sin: people are by nature selfish, whether or not that is, like being a sinner, a bad thing to be and inequality is an unavoidable result of that selfishness whether or not inequality is unjust.
Being "selfish", here, means desiring things for oneself, and for those in one's immediate circle (e.g. family), and being disposed to act on that desire, even when the consequence is that one has (much) more than other people do, and could otherwise have had.
The selfishness defense of inequality has two premises. First, a human-nature premise: that people are by nature selfish. And second, a sociological premise, that if people are selfish then equality is impossible to achieve and our sustain.
My rejection of the human nature premise goes something like this, as it does for many socialists: social structures extensively shape the structure of motivation. There exists no underlying human nature which can be straightforwardly unselfish or selfish, or selfish in some fixed degree. I do not agree with those who respond to this premise by claiming there is no such thing as human nature: that is an unmatieralist position, but we are animals, with a particular biology and a psychology induced by it. But human nature is quite plastic with respect to motivation. It is true, in my view, that circumstances will have to propitious to a certain degree for humans to be unselfish in their attitude and behavior. It may be best to explain this by saying that the truth about human nature, in my view, can disclosed by the variable height of a line on a grap with circumstances on the horizontal and degrees of manfiested selfish orientation on the vertical. The right way to categorize human nature would be as a function, with circumstances as arguments and forms of behavior as values. And all you need to believe, in order to deny that human nature is selfish in a sense that it threatens the egalitarian project, is what I believe: that people would be relevantly unselfish in propitious circumstances, and such circumstances are acessible.
Some reject the sociological premise independently, I reject it in principle but I personally doubt we have reached the technological level to implement the independent solution to it in an acceptable way but I will state the common reply to this premise here due to its importance, in both the past and the future, in this debate:
It does not follow from the fact that if people are by nature selfish that inequality is inescapable. The social structure is soveriegn over not just motivation, but so, too, structure is soveriegn over the upshot of motivation. Even if people are selfish, the rules governing their interaction could nevertheless prevent their selfishness from issuing in inequality. Such rules might, for example, be enforced by a great mjaority, who were themselves selfishly or at least not altruistically motivated, and who would be at the short end of inequality in the abscensce of such rules.
Equality
Tom's thoughts on this are very good. preliminarily I'll say this (someday I hope to understand this issue completely):
I don't know if I would support the implementation of the system you spoke about right now, just to clear things up. I would prefer it to the current system in the U.S., but that is not saying much. I do support 'coupon capitalism'/'market socialism' and the 'egalitarian planner' as advocated by Roemer in his works, particularly the books "A Future for Socialism" and "Equality of Opportunity" as well as compensatory education, also described well by Roemer.
We can also have a socialist 'lite' country like many Scandaniavian countries, where incomes are far more equal than in the U.S. or even Britain but productivity is higher and GDP per head is about the same. Many recent studies have shown that within a largely market society more equality in resources (up to a certain level) actually leads to higher efficency and and productivity as well (e.g. the essay "wealth inequality, wealth constrains, and economic performance" in the "Handbook of Income Distribution" ed. by A. Atkinson). Why this occurs is still largely speculative, but I think it shows productivity would increase, for example, in the U.S. if income was distributed as equally as it is in Sweden, for example. I myself plan on doing some research into the importance of economic incentives after/while getting my PHD in poli sci/political economy.
However, I should mention a few things about why it might occur, and which might finally answer your question:
1. When this debate was more salient, I used to have a list of nine other motivations towards production other than for economic gain created by Richard Arneson in the 80s, I'll try to find it. There are other reasons people work, and work hard, than to make cash: reciprocity/reciprocal altruism, joy of certain work, the intrinsic desire to do something productive or good for their society, wage solidarity (like in Sweden),to follow social norms, to earn high social status etc. (we all post about politics and ethics on this forum; thinking and arguing about the well-being of others when we could be studying and debating about poker on the same site, which would increase the ammount of money we have in our own pockets)
2. There is much debate about how much of the failure of centrally planned socialism is due to the various factors: A) the lack of democracy B) Lack of Coordination C) Lack of incentives.
A well-ordered democracy could have lead to better results. It is logically possible that democratic accountabillity could keep state-owned firms running efficently.
However, I think the main problem with those econmic systems is reason B); this is something that technology and social science could eventually fix but regardless, we could have the system you describe instead as well as any number of egalitarian alternatives.
This is because the literature shows that not only did Soviet workers worked hard despite poor incentives and poor coordination , but they were constantly coming up with ingenious ways to deal with the poor inputs given to them by the central planners (see especially the works of Michael Burawoy, e.g. "Mythologies of Work: A comparsion of firms in State Socialism and Advanced Capitalism" in American Sociological Review 50, 723-737, 1985.)
Think Hayek here: The planners and managers simply did not know what to do in these economies; they didn't have the technology or the ability to figure out the correct production functions and therefore could not compute marginal costs. They didn't know how much they could produce with given inputs, and they couldn't deal as well as many (people in) markets can with innovation and new commodities. Hayek here did not say that the managers would be self-serving or opportunistic, he in fact assumed they would be 'loyal and capable'. Rather, he just didn't think they would be able to cut costs and produce efficiently in this environment even trying their best.
So in my view the reason these countries failed to some degree economically is mostly due to a lack of coordination as opposed to incentives; a capitalist market provides both, a completely egalitarian market like you briefly describe(described and theorized in depth by Joseph Carens in the 1980s and 90s) provides the coordination function of markets without the monetary incentives.
The next three assume some inequality/importance of incentives, but deny that a wide degree of inequality is needed to get people to work hard; in short, they are explanations for why increasing equality, to a considerable degree, can increase efficency.
3. Diminishing marginal utility/satisficing vs. Maximizing: Most people do not endlessly try to make as much money as possible/accumulate endlessly but set a certain level; a goal that they want to reach and try to reach it; then they don't care as much in a market society after they reach it. If people really wanted to maximize income they would work as much as they physically could, yet we know almost nobody ever does this.
This is why this is important: John works as a high level computer programmer getting $80,000/year after tax. In his view, he would be able to buy everything he really wants and have more $ than his neighbor if he could make $100,000, and there is a job that pays $100,000 (where he would be more productive) which he could get if he trained for six months after work he could get this job. There is also a job that would pay 125,000 where he would be even more productive, but he would have to work harder, work an extra hour a week, and get 12 months of training after work to get it, and he doesn't think the 25k a year is worth it; he doesn't care that much about the extra 25k. He decides to start training for the 100,000 job.
However, a bill passes three months later which increases the tax rate on the UMC by 10%. Now he would only take home (slighly less than) 90,000 with that job, not enough for him to gurantee he could have that sweet new home entertainment system with the 900' TV screen. However, instead of staying at the (initially) 80,000 a year job, what actually happens is he trains and takes the 125,000 job, because he really wants that TV. So the higher tax rate increases his productivity because he needs to work more and harder and get more talents to reach the goal he has set for himself.
Relatedly, DMU: when someone already has 2 million dollars, making an additional $250,000 for this person is not nearly as important as making $250,000 for someon with only 10k in the bank. But it is also not nearly as important for the millionaire as it is for someone with 400,000 in the bank. Hence, while in a system with a highly progressive tax rate the able-bodied skilled people get less $ in absolute terms than they would in another system for exercising their talents, they derive so much more utility from each dollar that they make. This tends to lead them to work as hard under both system.
Without a progressive tax on inheritance and income, someone can become rich and be 'set for life', as the cliche goes, much more easily (their kids to). Someone who is rich has less incentive to work hard, innovate etc. then somebody who is not.
4) The untalented workers get more money per hour worked in an egalitarian society then they do in an inegalitarian society, but not enough to be satisficed, hence they have more incentive to work.
Egalitarian societies tend to allow for more upward social mobility, so a person who is born in lower part of the income brackets in a relatively more egal society is more likely to be willing (and of course more likely to be able) to try and become talented in the first place (through education, training etc.)than in a highly unequal society. More talented, disciplined people in a society likely leads to higher productivity. The people born to
and 5) As I mentioned to you in the 'equality and efficency' thread, the highest paying jobs tend to be the ones that are the most intrinsically enjoyable. Given the choice, the talented person would much rather be a lawyer or an NBA guard than a factory worker or a cashier if all were paid the same. So even if we equalize the pay, people will still tend to choose the jobs which are more productive if they have the talents to work at that job(based on the capitalistic view of what is prodcutive, at least).
I don't know if I would support the implementation of the system you spoke about right now, just to clear things up. I would prefer it to the current system in the U.S., but that is not saying much. I do support 'coupon capitalism'/'market socialism' and the 'egalitarian planner' as advocated by Roemer in his works, particularly the books "A Future for Socialism" and "Equality of Opportunity" as well as compensatory education, also described well by Roemer.
We can also have a socialist 'lite' country like many Scandaniavian countries, where incomes are far more equal than in the U.S. or even Britain but productivity is higher and GDP per head is about the same. Many recent studies have shown that within a largely market society more equality in resources (up to a certain level) actually leads to higher efficency and and productivity as well (e.g. the essay "wealth inequality, wealth constrains, and economic performance" in the "Handbook of Income Distribution" ed. by A. Atkinson). Why this occurs is still largely speculative, but I think it shows productivity would increase, for example, in the U.S. if income was distributed as equally as it is in Sweden, for example. I myself plan on doing some research into the importance of economic incentives after/while getting my PHD in poli sci/political economy.
However, I should mention a few things about why it might occur, and which might finally answer your question:
1. When this debate was more salient, I used to have a list of nine other motivations towards production other than for economic gain created by Richard Arneson in the 80s, I'll try to find it. There are other reasons people work, and work hard, than to make cash: reciprocity/reciprocal altruism, joy of certain work, the intrinsic desire to do something productive or good for their society, wage solidarity (like in Sweden),to follow social norms, to earn high social status etc. (we all post about politics and ethics on this forum; thinking and arguing about the well-being of others when we could be studying and debating about poker on the same site, which would increase the ammount of money we have in our own pockets)
2. There is much debate about how much of the failure of centrally planned socialism is due to the various factors: A) the lack of democracy B) Lack of Coordination C) Lack of incentives.
A well-ordered democracy could have lead to better results. It is logically possible that democratic accountabillity could keep state-owned firms running efficently.
However, I think the main problem with those econmic systems is reason B); this is something that technology and social science could eventually fix but regardless, we could have the system you describe instead as well as any number of egalitarian alternatives.
This is because the literature shows that not only did Soviet workers worked hard despite poor incentives and poor coordination , but they were constantly coming up with ingenious ways to deal with the poor inputs given to them by the central planners (see especially the works of Michael Burawoy, e.g. "Mythologies of Work: A comparsion of firms in State Socialism and Advanced Capitalism" in American Sociological Review 50, 723-737, 1985.)
Think Hayek here: The planners and managers simply did not know what to do in these economies; they didn't have the technology or the ability to figure out the correct production functions and therefore could not compute marginal costs. They didn't know how much they could produce with given inputs, and they couldn't deal as well as many (people in) markets can with innovation and new commodities. Hayek here did not say that the managers would be self-serving or opportunistic, he in fact assumed they would be 'loyal and capable'. Rather, he just didn't think they would be able to cut costs and produce efficiently in this environment even trying their best.
So in my view the reason these countries failed to some degree economically is mostly due to a lack of coordination as opposed to incentives; a capitalist market provides both, a completely egalitarian market like you briefly describe(described and theorized in depth by Joseph Carens in the 1980s and 90s) provides the coordination function of markets without the monetary incentives.
The next three assume some inequality/importance of incentives, but deny that a wide degree of inequality is needed to get people to work hard; in short, they are explanations for why increasing equality, to a considerable degree, can increase efficency.
3. Diminishing marginal utility/satisficing vs. Maximizing: Most people do not endlessly try to make as much money as possible/accumulate endlessly but set a certain level; a goal that they want to reach and try to reach it; then they don't care as much in a market society after they reach it. If people really wanted to maximize income they would work as much as they physically could, yet we know almost nobody ever does this.
This is why this is important: John works as a high level computer programmer getting $80,000/year after tax. In his view, he would be able to buy everything he really wants and have more $ than his neighbor if he could make $100,000, and there is a job that pays $100,000 (where he would be more productive) which he could get if he trained for six months after work he could get this job. There is also a job that would pay 125,000 where he would be even more productive, but he would have to work harder, work an extra hour a week, and get 12 months of training after work to get it, and he doesn't think the 25k a year is worth it; he doesn't care that much about the extra 25k. He decides to start training for the 100,000 job.
However, a bill passes three months later which increases the tax rate on the UMC by 10%. Now he would only take home (slighly less than) 90,000 with that job, not enough for him to gurantee he could have that sweet new home entertainment system with the 900' TV screen. However, instead of staying at the (initially) 80,000 a year job, what actually happens is he trains and takes the 125,000 job, because he really wants that TV. So the higher tax rate increases his productivity because he needs to work more and harder and get more talents to reach the goal he has set for himself.
Relatedly, DMU: when someone already has 2 million dollars, making an additional $250,000 for this person is not nearly as important as making $250,000 for someon with only 10k in the bank. But it is also not nearly as important for the millionaire as it is for someone with 400,000 in the bank. Hence, while in a system with a highly progressive tax rate the able-bodied skilled people get less $ in absolute terms than they would in another system for exercising their talents, they derive so much more utility from each dollar that they make. This tends to lead them to work as hard under both system.
Without a progressive tax on inheritance and income, someone can become rich and be 'set for life', as the cliche goes, much more easily (their kids to). Someone who is rich has less incentive to work hard, innovate etc. then somebody who is not.
4) The untalented workers get more money per hour worked in an egalitarian society then they do in an inegalitarian society, but not enough to be satisficed, hence they have more incentive to work.
Egalitarian societies tend to allow for more upward social mobility, so a person who is born in lower part of the income brackets in a relatively more egal society is more likely to be willing (and of course more likely to be able) to try and become talented in the first place (through education, training etc.)than in a highly unequal society. More talented, disciplined people in a society likely leads to higher productivity. The people born to
and 5) As I mentioned to you in the 'equality and efficency' thread, the highest paying jobs tend to be the ones that are the most intrinsically enjoyable. Given the choice, the talented person would much rather be a lawyer or an NBA guard than a factory worker or a cashier if all were paid the same. So even if we equalize the pay, people will still tend to choose the jobs which are more productive if they have the talents to work at that job(based on the capitalistic view of what is prodcutive, at least).
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A new perspective on Iran
Are there any rational reasons why Iran shouldn't be able to go nuclear, and I don't mean just for energy, I'm talking about weapons.
Of course the United States and other members of the nuclear club don't want Iran to get them. The more exclusive the club is the more power its members have.
Isn't this situation analogous to gun control in the sense that everybody should have the equal right to defend themselves? Either everyone should be able to carry a gun or no one. Obviously the US would say that Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism therefore they cannot be trusted. I'm sure the government of Iran believes the same thing about Washington. In reality the United States and its nukes are a much bigger threat to Iran then vice-versa.
The only reason for nuclear states to be so exclusive is to keep their military power and global hegemony. I personally don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but as a person with neutral citizenship, what rational arguments are there against Iran doing so?
Of course the United States and other members of the nuclear club don't want Iran to get them. The more exclusive the club is the more power its members have.
Isn't this situation analogous to gun control in the sense that everybody should have the equal right to defend themselves? Either everyone should be able to carry a gun or no one. Obviously the US would say that Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism therefore they cannot be trusted. I'm sure the government of Iran believes the same thing about Washington. In reality the United States and its nukes are a much bigger threat to Iran then vice-versa.
The only reason for nuclear states to be so exclusive is to keep their military power and global hegemony. I personally don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but as a person with neutral citizenship, what rational arguments are there against Iran doing so?
AC is death
I have many anarchist leanings, but to live 100% by the invisible hand is to die by it. It makes me want to puke every time I hear ACers claim that people willingly enter into these work contracts with crummy employers, as if they honestly had a choice in the matter. I've had a string of horrendous jobs since I graduated a year and a half ago, each one keeping me just above poverty level. I didn't work 50 hours a week with no overtime pay, killing weeds, for any reason other than I don't want to starve and I need a place to sleep. And Chomsky's example of the potentate and starving subject is heaps less hyperbolic and false analogous to the real world than the specter of Big Brother's laced-up-high-and-tight jackboots crushing down on the necks of his subjects, tyrannically robbing them blind and enslaving them.
Every time you guys talk about the jackboots and tyranny of government I'll shoot back with some crap about the invisible hand pounding me with it's mace. I have more of a claim to being oppressed (although I don't claim it) because I have to eat peanut butter everynight for dinner to make rent. Only well-off snobs would consider the work contracts I've signed to have been completely free.
Every time you guys talk about the jackboots and tyranny of government I'll shoot back with some crap about the invisible hand pounding me with it's mace. I have more of a claim to being oppressed (although I don't claim it) because I have to eat peanut butter everynight for dinner to make rent. Only well-off snobs would consider the work contracts I've signed to have been completely free.
Monday, July 9, 2007
More apologies fro the state
1. We "need" government to provide social insurance via redistribution of wealth because it is inefficient. Private insurance providers would only seek to maximize financial gain, whereas I want my social insurance to maximize quality of life. Also, due at least partially to bad lack, some citizens will end up not paying "premiums" on my social insurance but will still get the coverage. That won't happen in private insurance.
2. I think that pointing our a small number of contentious issues around individual rights is not evidence that the majority isn't doing a good job overall at establishing rights. And the bill of rights to protect individual rights isn't hypothetical - we have them in North America already. So to your question of how do we come up with them, I say we already have.
3. I think your concepts of a Majority Group and a Minority Group are too clearly defined in your head. The reality is that there is one big group - the citizens. And they individually make choices. And then you tally up the results and that determines the majority rule. Your flat hypothetical scenarios are based on the premise that a Majority Group with a fixed agenda exists and that a Minority Group with a different agenda exists and that the system is allocating all of the power to the Majority Group. This is only a distorted perception of the democratic process which is to allow all individuals equal power and then tally the results.
4. I do not consider a state that acknowledges the weakness of the human pyschology and acts on our understanding of behaviour is a "nanny state". This is implying that there is a "inferior" group that needs protection from a "superior" group. I reject that, and I think you do as well. But I don't think that should preclude us from having a system that protects people from the downside of variance (poker tie-in!). By protecting everybody from bad luck and circumstances we improve everybody's life.
5. Finally, I reiterate that I don't perceive taxation as "taking something away" from someone. I consider it to be a social contract under which we acknowledge that some citizens will end up with an very low quality of life due to luck and circumstances and that the best course of action is to take marginally less valuable $s from the wealthiest and apply them where they are most powerful, namely in the purchasing of quality of life for the poor.
2. I think that pointing our a small number of contentious issues around individual rights is not evidence that the majority isn't doing a good job overall at establishing rights. And the bill of rights to protect individual rights isn't hypothetical - we have them in North America already. So to your question of how do we come up with them, I say we already have.
3. I think your concepts of a Majority Group and a Minority Group are too clearly defined in your head. The reality is that there is one big group - the citizens. And they individually make choices. And then you tally up the results and that determines the majority rule. Your flat hypothetical scenarios are based on the premise that a Majority Group with a fixed agenda exists and that a Minority Group with a different agenda exists and that the system is allocating all of the power to the Majority Group. This is only a distorted perception of the democratic process which is to allow all individuals equal power and then tally the results.
4. I do not consider a state that acknowledges the weakness of the human pyschology and acts on our understanding of behaviour is a "nanny state". This is implying that there is a "inferior" group that needs protection from a "superior" group. I reject that, and I think you do as well. But I don't think that should preclude us from having a system that protects people from the downside of variance (poker tie-in!). By protecting everybody from bad luck and circumstances we improve everybody's life.
5. Finally, I reiterate that I don't perceive taxation as "taking something away" from someone. I consider it to be a social contract under which we acknowledge that some citizens will end up with an very low quality of life due to luck and circumstances and that the best course of action is to take marginally less valuable $s from the wealthiest and apply them where they are most powerful, namely in the purchasing of quality of life for the poor.
Wealth Redistribution
I find the embedded quotes pretty hard to respond to but I think that these points will cover off most of your questions.
1. I think (or believe, if you prefer) that the overall quality of life in a society can be improved through redistribution of wealth. I need a government to do that with. I prefer a democratic government.
2. I think that the concept of majority rule needs to be backed by a bill of fundamental rights of individuals that can't be violated regardless of the democratic majority rule. I believe that the entire source of our disagreements boils down to the fact that you (apparently) think (or believe) that the taxation system is a violation of your individual rights. I don't have a problem with you believing that and I continue to disagree. I anticipate that your response will be "but the majority sets the bill of rights". But we already have widely accepted bills of rights and I have faith (perhaps blind faith from your view) that the majority does a good job of defining individual rights.
3. The problem (as I see it) with a voluntary social insurance program is as follows. One fault of the human psychological makeup is that most people think that they are above average (I believe that this is a fairly well known and accepted scientific result; I'm sorry that I don't have a link). Consequently, if we fairly price a social insurance contract we would expect a large number of people to irrationally opt out under the assumption that they don't need the insurance. The result would be too many people falling into what I would call unacceptable living conditions. Sure, you can callously say "it's their fault, that was their choice" but we knew in advance that it would happen. Does that really make it their fault? Can't we accept some responsibility as policy makers without trampling individual choice? I think so.
1. I think (or believe, if you prefer) that the overall quality of life in a society can be improved through redistribution of wealth. I need a government to do that with. I prefer a democratic government.
2. I think that the concept of majority rule needs to be backed by a bill of fundamental rights of individuals that can't be violated regardless of the democratic majority rule. I believe that the entire source of our disagreements boils down to the fact that you (apparently) think (or believe) that the taxation system is a violation of your individual rights. I don't have a problem with you believing that and I continue to disagree. I anticipate that your response will be "but the majority sets the bill of rights". But we already have widely accepted bills of rights and I have faith (perhaps blind faith from your view) that the majority does a good job of defining individual rights.
3. The problem (as I see it) with a voluntary social insurance program is as follows. One fault of the human psychological makeup is that most people think that they are above average (I believe that this is a fairly well known and accepted scientific result; I'm sorry that I don't have a link). Consequently, if we fairly price a social insurance contract we would expect a large number of people to irrationally opt out under the assumption that they don't need the insurance. The result would be too many people falling into what I would call unacceptable living conditions. Sure, you can callously say "it's their fault, that was their choice" but we knew in advance that it would happen. Does that really make it their fault? Can't we accept some responsibility as policy makers without trampling individual choice? I think so.
So I said that people will intentionally try to make their lives worse? I never said such a thing so this makes you quite the lying party in this.
What I stated, and I still support, is that I find unworkable the idea of all roads in a country, such as the USA, being privately owned and operated, with the owner being able to do to and on his road whatever the hell he'd want. And when I pointed out that your "system" would allow a different owner even for every mile or so, you argued that those owners would join forces, since they would be ...acting rationally!
Who's the one working in fantasy-land, now?
You are able to find your way easily enough (I'm just taking you up on your word, now) because it has become customary, in most English-speaking countries, to use the same signs for direction (i.e. arrows) and for the men's room ("WC", "Toilet", etc).
Look up how those signs became ubiquitous, if you have some spare time.
While you're doing that, ponder on this : I never claimed that government should dictate everything in our lives! Customs and habits exist and are developed every day; people can still communicate with each other fairly regularly; patterns develop; and so on. You are trying to present my position as if I deny all that.
You are trying to paint a picture of those who oppose ACism, or are merely suspicious of its many promises, as the mirror image of ACers, i.e. as people who believe in the omnipotence of their system! In fact, opponents of AC utopianism come in all sizes and ideas. My position is that in some things it's better to leave everything non-organised and in other things it's better to have things organised -- and I mean collectively organised-- with the caveat that empowering others to act on my behalf should be done as democratically as technically possible.
So I don't want, for example, totally unregulated and un-monitored restaurants (thanks but no thanks) and entrusting the cleanliness of the kitchen to the "trials and errors" of your Free Market (thanks but no thanks). However, I do support entrusting individuals with everything that has to do with themselves as physical beings, e.g. drugs, recreation, etc, as well as various significant things in life, eg the internet, where government regulation should have as little say as possible.
But, as I said, it comforts you to imagine a totally different picture of your opposition and then attack it. Ah well, you must think you're Don Quixote.
What I stated, and I still support, is that I find unworkable the idea of all roads in a country, such as the USA, being privately owned and operated, with the owner being able to do to and on his road whatever the hell he'd want. And when I pointed out that your "system" would allow a different owner even for every mile or so, you argued that those owners would join forces, since they would be ...acting rationally!
Who's the one working in fantasy-land, now?
You are able to find your way easily enough (I'm just taking you up on your word, now) because it has become customary, in most English-speaking countries, to use the same signs for direction (i.e. arrows) and for the men's room ("WC", "Toilet", etc).
Look up how those signs became ubiquitous, if you have some spare time.
While you're doing that, ponder on this : I never claimed that government should dictate everything in our lives! Customs and habits exist and are developed every day; people can still communicate with each other fairly regularly; patterns develop; and so on. You are trying to present my position as if I deny all that.
You are trying to paint a picture of those who oppose ACism, or are merely suspicious of its many promises, as the mirror image of ACers, i.e. as people who believe in the omnipotence of their system! In fact, opponents of AC utopianism come in all sizes and ideas. My position is that in some things it's better to leave everything non-organised and in other things it's better to have things organised -- and I mean collectively organised-- with the caveat that empowering others to act on my behalf should be done as democratically as technically possible.
So I don't want, for example, totally unregulated and un-monitored restaurants (thanks but no thanks) and entrusting the cleanliness of the kitchen to the "trials and errors" of your Free Market (thanks but no thanks). However, I do support entrusting individuals with everything that has to do with themselves as physical beings, e.g. drugs, recreation, etc, as well as various significant things in life, eg the internet, where government regulation should have as little say as possible.
But, as I said, it comforts you to imagine a totally different picture of your opposition and then attack it. Ah well, you must think you're Don Quixote.
Reflection on Activism
1) Social movement should enrich people's life. Because being committed to social movement and activism often means sacrifice in terms of time and energy, or personal relationships - however people rarely get anything back that will be satisfying.
In terms of my personal experience, I find the meetings often quite long and boring. The supposedly interesting discussion is basically dominated by uniformity of views. I tried a few times to ask questions but almost never felt that my questions are being answered - what often happens is people bring up things that are irrelevant, and then go on and on. The most depression aspect for me is I always feel I'm simply assigned to a passive role of following whatever the organisation has decided.
2) Talking about a bunch of adjectives (values or ideals) alone are not enough. Social movement need to build institutions based on these values.
I am often frustrated by the lack of any concrete positive action. Certainly we have protests and demonstrations etc. - but I think these are negative/passive actions - it's about what we are against - not what we are for.
And I'm sure lots of people have similar experience - when you ask them: so we all know what socialists are against, capitalism/globalisation/war in Iraq etc., but what are we for? What are we doing that will bring changes. The answer is often that we want getting rid of capitalism and we want a workers' state in my opinion really amounts to saying nothing, or I will be told just join the demonstration - meaning we will protest and wait for changes. Sure, this will bring changes - but I in no way feel empowered both as an individual and as a group.
3) Related to the second point, it's almost always focused on telling people the terrible state of the world. Of course, it's important to know what's happening. But on the other side, there is simply a shortage of things people could do to change - so you need a vision as well as ways to actively work toward its realisation.
So I'm very much interested to know your experience - do you identify with the said problems? And what's your general thought on activism in terms of problems and what can be done to improve?
In terms of my personal experience, I find the meetings often quite long and boring. The supposedly interesting discussion is basically dominated by uniformity of views. I tried a few times to ask questions but almost never felt that my questions are being answered - what often happens is people bring up things that are irrelevant, and then go on and on. The most depression aspect for me is I always feel I'm simply assigned to a passive role of following whatever the organisation has decided.
2) Talking about a bunch of adjectives (values or ideals) alone are not enough. Social movement need to build institutions based on these values.
I am often frustrated by the lack of any concrete positive action. Certainly we have protests and demonstrations etc. - but I think these are negative/passive actions - it's about what we are against - not what we are for.
And I'm sure lots of people have similar experience - when you ask them: so we all know what socialists are against, capitalism/globalisation/war in Iraq etc., but what are we for? What are we doing that will bring changes. The answer is often that we want getting rid of capitalism and we want a workers' state in my opinion really amounts to saying nothing, or I will be told just join the demonstration - meaning we will protest and wait for changes. Sure, this will bring changes - but I in no way feel empowered both as an individual and as a group.
3) Related to the second point, it's almost always focused on telling people the terrible state of the world. Of course, it's important to know what's happening. But on the other side, there is simply a shortage of things people could do to change - so you need a vision as well as ways to actively work toward its realisation.
So I'm very much interested to know your experience - do you identify with the said problems? And what's your general thought on activism in terms of problems and what can be done to improve?
One problem is the way you look at the market. You treat it as if it is this utopian place with everything being decided with persuasion and discussion and choice. But, if the market worked the way you imagined it does, it wouldn't work at all. In reality, the market gets things done by constraining people, by forcing them to innovate and cost cut (for businesses) or work (for individuals) or perish. It coordinates activity via what we would call a bribe if it was done by an individual. Nobody chooses the price of an item, or gets to choose whether there product would be sucessful, nor is anything decided by a roundtable discussion. If all businesses could really choose what the price of an item was, or how much of X could be produced profitably, or how much they get paid for and what ("well, regardless of your argument that a doctor ought to be paid a lot and an XBOX player nothing, I voluntarily choose that I'm a pro XBOX player and a millionaire") was then market societies would be unmitigated disasters. The market works, when it does work, BY REMOVING THESE CHOICES, BY TAKING AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO DECIDE. The market is a way for people to control the behavior of other human beings, and that is why it is a good thing, as this aspect of the market allows us to be better off than we would be without a market because it coordinates our behavior: it gets us to do socially beneficial things that we wouldn't do IF WE HAD THE CHOICE. Don't produce, don't make much money. Don't make what consumers want, go out of business. Waste, and lose market share and profitability. What is and isn't acceptable in the market is decided by power (namely, that of dollars) just as what is and isn't accceptable in a state is decided by power (namely, that of votes).
"I never in all my years of activism witnessed anything so vicious as from the Israeli military", said Irish peace activist and Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire in an interview with Amy Goodman on democracy now She was shot with a rubber bullet by a 20 year old Israeli soldier.
Maguire, and several hundred protestors from 20 different countries converged in the palestinian town of Bilin to protest the construction of yet another "security wall." The wall is being constructed inside of palestinian land. Instead of enforcing the green line, it actually expands the green line. Palestinian farmers have lost their land, and the palestinian economy has been further damaged.
Israel's behavior is fully consistent with it's overall policy of collective punishment. The IDF will demolish houses, set up road check-points, seize land, and perform other violent activities against the entire population as a way to punish them for the actions of terrorists.
Any form of collective punishment is illegal under international law. However, the only way to enforce this law is for the security council of the UN to vote on it. Israel will remain immune from the judgment of the security council, because any of the five permanent members can veto a security council resolution. There have been many resolutions by the security council criticizing Israel for violating human rights that would have passed, were it not for the automatic veto of the United States.
This is far from the first time the IDF has acted violently towards international peace activists. In 2002, an american peace activist, Rachel Corrie, was run down and killed by an Israeli Bulldozer. Rachel was trying to stop the bulldozer from destroying a family's home.
The reality is that Israel can get any with almost anything it wants to, because of the unconditional support it receives from the United States. In addition to receiving over 3 billion dollars per year in aid and loans from the US, Israel receives powerful diplomatic support that shields them from the international community.
Intellectually dishonest right wing zionists are quick to label the international community anti-semitic, despite the fact that many of the most vocal critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, the Rabbi Michael Lerner, Howard Zinn, Ami Ayalon, and Norman Finkelstein, are jews themselves.
In my view, the united states should withdraw financial and military support from Israel until Israel agrees to stop it's policy of expanding it's borders and engaging in collective punishment.
Maguire, and several hundred protestors from 20 different countries converged in the palestinian town of Bilin to protest the construction of yet another "security wall." The wall is being constructed inside of palestinian land. Instead of enforcing the green line, it actually expands the green line. Palestinian farmers have lost their land, and the palestinian economy has been further damaged.
Israel's behavior is fully consistent with it's overall policy of collective punishment. The IDF will demolish houses, set up road check-points, seize land, and perform other violent activities against the entire population as a way to punish them for the actions of terrorists.
Any form of collective punishment is illegal under international law. However, the only way to enforce this law is for the security council of the UN to vote on it. Israel will remain immune from the judgment of the security council, because any of the five permanent members can veto a security council resolution. There have been many resolutions by the security council criticizing Israel for violating human rights that would have passed, were it not for the automatic veto of the United States.
This is far from the first time the IDF has acted violently towards international peace activists. In 2002, an american peace activist, Rachel Corrie, was run down and killed by an Israeli Bulldozer. Rachel was trying to stop the bulldozer from destroying a family's home.
The reality is that Israel can get any with almost anything it wants to, because of the unconditional support it receives from the United States. In addition to receiving over 3 billion dollars per year in aid and loans from the US, Israel receives powerful diplomatic support that shields them from the international community.
Intellectually dishonest right wing zionists are quick to label the international community anti-semitic, despite the fact that many of the most vocal critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, the Rabbi Michael Lerner, Howard Zinn, Ami Ayalon, and Norman Finkelstein, are jews themselves.
In my view, the united states should withdraw financial and military support from Israel until Israel agrees to stop it's policy of expanding it's borders and engaging in collective punishment.
Happy May Day
Since this is the real Labour Day (only in North America was the May Day workers' holiday changed, in fear, to September), why don't we all celebrate the rich history, solidarity, triumphs, tribulations, and real progress that the labour movement has brought to working people across the world? The labour movement has historically provided working people with greater wages and benefits, increased safety at work, greater job security, stronger communities, checks against employer exploitation, and a whole host of other benefits. Yet, some would say that the movement has never been at a lower ebb.
Having been a Union Business Agent and occasional Union organizer in Canada and the US for the last dozen years, I truly appreciate the increase in part-time/temporary work, the reduction in real wages among workers, and the oppressive pro-management labour relations systems of both countries. It makes selling my wares much easier. Yes, conditions are clearly getting worse and worse for those who choose not to take an active role in bettering their working lives. But for those who have chosen to exercise their freedom of association and joined an existing union or assisted in creating a newly unionized workplace, conditions are consistently better than those who have not learned how this kind of democratic organization can benefit them and their fellow employees.
When I go to an unorganized plant it is becoming increasingly easy, despite management anti-union SWAT teams, to make employees realize that all I am doing is offering an insurance policy on one of the most important parts of their lives; their jobs. Aside from the usual few anti-union anecdotes bantered about, most workers I talk to eventually come the correct conclusion that union members enjoy better working conditions across the board from their non-union counterparts. Once educated, rhetoric discarded, the choice becomes clear.
On this International Workers' Day, before you join your local march, I am hoping that those of you fortunate enough to be employed at a unionized workplace will remember those who are still struggling outside the movement. Although you and your working brothers and sisters, or those before you, had the strength, commitment, and compassion to struggle together to make their working lives better, there are far too many around you on this historic day that are have yet to begin their own struggle.
In Solidarity,
Hamish.
Having been a Union Business Agent and occasional Union organizer in Canada and the US for the last dozen years, I truly appreciate the increase in part-time/temporary work, the reduction in real wages among workers, and the oppressive pro-management labour relations systems of both countries. It makes selling my wares much easier. Yes, conditions are clearly getting worse and worse for those who choose not to take an active role in bettering their working lives. But for those who have chosen to exercise their freedom of association and joined an existing union or assisted in creating a newly unionized workplace, conditions are consistently better than those who have not learned how this kind of democratic organization can benefit them and their fellow employees.
When I go to an unorganized plant it is becoming increasingly easy, despite management anti-union SWAT teams, to make employees realize that all I am doing is offering an insurance policy on one of the most important parts of their lives; their jobs. Aside from the usual few anti-union anecdotes bantered about, most workers I talk to eventually come the correct conclusion that union members enjoy better working conditions across the board from their non-union counterparts. Once educated, rhetoric discarded, the choice becomes clear.
On this International Workers' Day, before you join your local march, I am hoping that those of you fortunate enough to be employed at a unionized workplace will remember those who are still struggling outside the movement. Although you and your working brothers and sisters, or those before you, had the strength, commitment, and compassion to struggle together to make their working lives better, there are far too many around you on this historic day that are have yet to begin their own struggle.
In Solidarity,
Hamish.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Workers of the World, Unite!
Workers of the world unite! There is much to be done and not much time. We live in a world of inequality and injustice. We must overcome the forces of greed and avarice that dominate our society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)