From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Randy Bentwick:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Is that the saying?
It simply doesn't make sense in the real world. Why would a smarter, more industrious, more ambitious person put in all that effort forsomeone dumber and lazier. It is like an attractive and interesting male using his seductive skills to get everyone but himself laid. Who does that?
Also, don't forget that communism fails to give to each according totheir need... Both sides of the promise are broken.
Doctor Thomas:
Someone smarter, more industrious, and more ambitious person might put in all that effort for someone dumber and lazier IF they were sufficiently rewarded socially. (Think of some of the best motivations for joining the public service, or commitment to charity, or a decision to become a scientist, environmental activist, or a war hero).
Not saying that it SHOULD be done (this is a separate social/cultural design issue), but I reckon it COULD be done. All we need to do is to convince woment to want to have sex with "high social contributors".
What was that quote by Aristotle Onasis "If it weren't for women, all the money in the world would have no meaning"...
Patrick Henry:
You are right, Thomas. Hence the massive commitment of millions to Communism in the 20th century.
And Edwards is right. When everyone saw that the promise wasn't fulfilled, they gave up.
For me, the key is "God helps those who help themselves". I don't mind giving someone a leg-up, but I hate long-term freeloaders.
Doctor Thomas:
Patrick Henry, why do business executives care about the long term survival of their company (some care about it well beyond their prospective retirement age). Why does Warren Buffet care about the future of America (he'll be dead soon). Identification with causes beyond immediate gratification of the self is possible (provided people's immediate material needs are satisfied), but it would require significant shift before it were to become culturally entrenched, and wouldn't be possible to change quickly.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Is that the saying?
It simply doesn't make sense in the real world. Why would a smarter, more industrious, more ambitious person put in all that effort forsomeone dumber and lazier. It is like an attractive and interesting male using his seductive skills to get everyone but himself laid. Who does that?
Also, don't forget that communism fails to give to each according totheir need... Both sides of the promise are broken.
Doctor Thomas:
Someone smarter, more industrious, and more ambitious person might put in all that effort for someone dumber and lazier IF they were sufficiently rewarded socially. (Think of some of the best motivations for joining the public service, or commitment to charity, or a decision to become a scientist, environmental activist, or a war hero).
Not saying that it SHOULD be done (this is a separate social/cultural design issue), but I reckon it COULD be done. All we need to do is to convince woment to want to have sex with "high social contributors".
What was that quote by Aristotle Onasis "If it weren't for women, all the money in the world would have no meaning"...
Patrick Henry:
You are right, Thomas. Hence the massive commitment of millions to Communism in the 20th century.
And Edwards is right. When everyone saw that the promise wasn't fulfilled, they gave up.
For me, the key is "God helps those who help themselves". I don't mind giving someone a leg-up, but I hate long-term freeloaders.
Doctor Thomas:
Patrick Henry, why do business executives care about the long term survival of their company (some care about it well beyond their prospective retirement age). Why does Warren Buffet care about the future of America (he'll be dead soon). Identification with causes beyond immediate gratification of the self is possible (provided people's immediate material needs are satisfied), but it would require significant shift before it were to become culturally entrenched, and wouldn't be possible to change quickly.
posted by Patrick Henry at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home