Did you understand the work for no pay poll?

[pattylou]

Pure systems are fine.

No they're not.

Sorry for misrepresenting you.

 

[pattylou]

So, what's the difference between what you intended and what Russ said? Were you asking what I'd do as a full-time job? I thought you were asking what I'd be willing to volunteer to do. If I didn't have to worry about money because I already had everything I could ever want or need, I'd volunteer to do stuff to keep myself occupied, but I sure as heck wouldn't work a full time job...I work for the money to buy myself the things I enjoy having, if working isn't going to help me get anything I need or want, why would I do it? If you were asking what someone would do as a volunteer, that's totally different than what you'd do for a full-time job. With volunteering, if you change your mind or realize it isn't something you enjoy afterall, you can always leave or be more picky about who you help.

But, if all you're saying is that we don't get paid for our work, but still need to work to survive (a more direct barter system instead of exchanging currency), then it would make sense to work providing the things that are more valued commodities, in which case my answer would have changed quite dramatically...I wouldn't do something just for "fun" but would have chosen something more like farming where I'd always have food on the table and the extra could be used to barter for whatever else I needed. On the other hand, if someone guaranteed I was going to have food on the table no matter what, and working harder than everyone else wouldn't provide me with more than anyone else, I'd be an idiot to choose one of the harder work your knuckles to the bone type jobs, and instead would pick something less back-breaking from the list (assuming I HAD to do something...if I didn't HAVE to work, and everything would be provided, I'd be more interested in pursuing my own hobbies, traveling, etc.)

So, I'm not sure what your intent was. I don't read that deeply into polls in GD I'm afraid, at least not until someone brings into question whether there was a flaw in the poll, and now I see there are many ways to interpret it, so there's a good chance I did misinterpret it.

I'll try rephrasing. The basic question is " (1) Are you lazy, or (2) do you do things by choice that benefit others, for no pay?"

I am certainly not qualified to say how *much* work, division of labor, whether people could 'do their own things,' etc etc etc. --- would be required for a communist society.

The question was simply: "Someone has contended that you won't work if you don't have to. Do you agree?"

The very fact that so many of raise children, volunteer, (I'm making dinner tomorrow for a hospice family), work in the classroom at the public schools, etc, tells us that we contribute to society for free.

The question is *not* whether this human trait is, itself, sufficient to sustain a society.

 

[Danger]

I understood it fine, didn't I?

 

[Smurf]

Well if nothing else at least we've established that conservatives can whine with the best of them

 

[Astronuc]

. . . that pure systems are flawed.

Pure systems work - hypothetically. And that is just the problem - they are hypothetical.

Hypothetically, everyone should be good, productive, thoughtful, kind, considerate, honest, intelligent, industrious, . . . . (add the good attribute of your choice).

However, reality is entirely different.


Evo, I am sorry that you have the flu. I hope you get well quickly. Drink plenty of fluids (tea, orange, cranberry juice and chicken soup are good), get plenty of rest, and take ibuprofen or aspirin for fever and aches.

 

[Danger]

Evo, I am sorry that you have the flu. I hope you get well quickly. Drink plenty of fluids (tea, orange, cranberry juice and chicken soup are good), get plenty of rest, and take ibuprofen or aspirin for fever and aches.

And if you get chilly, there's still that nice warm doggie to cuddle up with.

 

[Smurf]

Pure systems work - hypothetically. And that is just the problem - they are hypothetical.

What is a pure system anyways?

 

[pattylou]

(The US is not purely capitalistic. We have welfare, for example. )

A purely communistic system would have certain problems - such as some segment of the population not choosing to work as hard as others, but receiving the same benefits. This can lead to resentment on the parts of the hard workers "Why should I work so hard when my neighbor doesn't but he gets the same benefits as me?" There is also a problem with valuing goods and services. How much food is the construction of a house worth? What if it is worth more to one person than another? Who decides what it is worth? Is it fair to cut your friend a break on cost but not a stranger?

*Some* of these problems are circumvented with currency. You build a house, but building it for food becomes a problem because you need to store the food or maybe you'd rather have some food and some clothing in return for your services or some such. Currency, as a representation of the value of your contribution (building a house) seems like a good solution, because you can then use the currency to buy what you need when you need it. So now we have communism with money. This is a step closer to capitalism.

Pure capitalism runs into other problems. Some people are unable to work for themselves but we need to care for them. Monopolies are a problem. There are other problems with pure capitalism that I am forgetting at the moment, but which are discussed on the thread in PWA.

The basic goal is to have a society where people are happy and healthy and productive (I think that's the goal.) It makes sense that some elements of capitalism, some elements of socialism, and some elements of other systems may all be a part of such a society.

And there'd probably still be problems.

 

[Moonbear]

I'll try rephrasing. The basic question is " (1) Are you lazy, or (2) do you do things by choice that benefit others, for no pay?"

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there. So, if I'm not altruistic in my activities, I'm lazy? Yes, then I definitely misunderstood your poll.

 

[Smurf]

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there.

All dichotomies are false.

 

[Gokul43201]

All smurfs are false too !

pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.

PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.

 

[pattylou]

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there. So, if I'm not altruistic in my activities, I'm lazy? Yes, then I definitely misunderstood your poll.

No. I was phrasing it (here) to a ridiculous extreme, because previous efforts to phrase the question in a more realistic manner seemed to fail.

I guess you may well have misunderstood, (how would I really know?) but from what you've written I don't think you did.

 

[pattylou]

All smurfs are false too !

pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.

PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.

See immediate post above.

It's just tiresome trying to get everyone on the same line of the same page, particularly when most people seemed to get the general drift of the book overall.

 

[loseyourname]

All dichotomies are false.

You're either S.W.A.T. or you're not.

Okay, pretend I didn't just say that.

 

[Smurf]

Okay, pretend I didn't just say that.

Okay.

 

[Smurf]

All smurfs are false too !

Yeah? Well Gokul's hump hamsters.