Why "From Each According to His Ability..." is Horrible

[hmkpoker]

Because right now, your lazy ass could be producing something for someone who needs it more than you.

[ojc02]

and "to each according to his needs" is pretty terrible too. It means you wind up with a base subsistence level of living and no ability to better your own situation.

If only someone had come up with a system that rewarded you according to your level of input.....

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
and "to each according to his needs" is pretty terrible too. It means you wind up with a base subsistence level of living and no ability to better your own situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, if you think improving beyond subsistence is "needed", you may have to wait till everyone needs are met first. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If only someone had come up with a system that rewarded you according to your level of input.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Input into an incorruptible machine whose output is prosperity or death.

[slickpoppa]

Wow, deep stuff. In other news, scientists believe that within 50 years they will have invented electronic computing machines that can fit into a single room!

[PLOlover]

Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The saying is meant as a normative social value, not a person-to-person dictum. So, if people are starving in the streets, a properly functioning society will do something about it. No one bears that burden in their individual capacity.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The saying is meant as a normative social value, not a person-to-person dictum. So, if people are starving in the streets, a properly functioning society will do something about it. No one bears that burden in their individual capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does "society" "do something" about that? Eventually an actual human being is going to have to do the actual work, if something is actually going to get done. Any production that is diverted to the "starving in the streets" will come, ultimately, from individuals. The only question is how you get it from point A to point B.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The saying is meant as a normative social value, not a person-to-person dictum. So, if people are starving in the streets, a properly functioning society will do something about it. No one bears that burden in their individual capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does "society" "do something" about that? Eventually an actual human being is going to have to do the actual work, if something is actually going to get done. Any production that is diverted to the "starving in the streets" will come, ultimately, from individuals. The only question is how you get it from point A to point B.

[/ QUOTE ]

A similar mechanism to what keeps the water flowing and the roads maintained can also prevent unfortunate people from dying in the streets.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! This should be adequate refutation for all the Hugo Chavez-types in the world, and it has the great virtue that it ought to be simple enough for him to understand as well.

My only fear would be that he would miss the sarcasm, take it literally, and pass a law forbidding more than 10 hours of free time per week.