4 ms·

On the other hand, why should brilliant people work for modest salaries, creating wealth for others?

deogeo 8y ago
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in? From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? It is a very recent idea that the best society is created by everyone pursuing only their own self-interest.
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  >> From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? Honestly curious about which country you live in? I know some Nordic countries operate this way, but certainly not the US. Here in the US the above strategy would be a crushing losing one -- because the latter half of the "agreement" does not hold. Suppose you do offer from your abilities and dedicate your live to research, non-profits, education, whatever. There is no social agreement on the other side "to each according to their needs." It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly causes massive medical co-pays/co-insurance/deductibles to disappear. It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly lands your children a good education (more likely, you'll end up in an impoverished school district with lots of problems.) What you're proposing works well when both sides of the agreement are in place. Other than that, people have go into social good knowing full well they may pay the cost. I have a relative who runs a non-profit community medical clinic for those without insurance. From what I can see, the family lives paycheck to paycheck. If the roof breaks or boiler goes bust I can see them being in a lot of trouble. They accepted this fact and still do it. But that is a very personal and risky decision. One cannot browbeat others into taking such risky decisions.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    The question was what people should do, not how viable that is. It is up to the voters and the legislature to establish a society where doing what should be done is possible. I agree that people shouldn't be blamed for looking out for their own needs first (within limits - when billionaires use underhanded tactics to expand their empires, they certainly should be blamed). But I also think working only for your own self-interest shouldn't be idealized, as is more and more the case in the US. As for which country I live in - one where people are taxed based on their income (from each according to their abilities), and that money is used mostly to fund things for the common good, such as medical care, education, and a social safety net (to each according to their needs). The degree of this transfer is greater than in the US, but that's just it - it's only a matter of degree.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  No it's not a very recent idea. That's incredibly myopic.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in? From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? It is a very recent idea that the best society is created by everyone pursuing only their own self-interest.

TuringNYC 8y ago
>> From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? Honestly curious about which country you live in? I know some Nordic countries operate this way, but certainly not the US. Here in the US the above strategy would be a crushing losing one -- because the latter half of the "agreement" does not hold. Suppose you do offer from your abilities and dedicate your live to research, non-profits, education, whatever. There is no social agreement on the other side "to each according to their needs." It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly causes massive medical co-pays/co-insurance/deductibles to disappear. It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly lands your children a good education (more likely, you'll end up in an impoverished school district with lots of problems.) What you're proposing works well when both sides of the agreement are in place. Other than that, people have go into social good knowing full well they may pay the cost. I have a relative who runs a non-profit community medical clinic for those without insurance. From what I can see, the family lives paycheck to paycheck. If the roof breaks or boiler goes bust I can see them being in a lot of trouble. They accepted this fact and still do it. But that is a very personal and risky decision. One cannot browbeat others into taking such risky decisions.
- deogeo 8y ago
  The question was what people should do, not how viable that is. It is up to the voters and the legislature to establish a society where doing what should be done is possible. I agree that people shouldn't be blamed for looking out for their own needs first (within limits - when billionaires use underhanded tactics to expand their empires, they certainly should be blamed). But I also think working only for your own self-interest shouldn't be idealized, as is more and more the case in the US. As for which country I live in - one where people are taxed based on their income (from each according to their abilities), and that money is used mostly to fund things for the common good, such as medical care, education, and a social safety net (to each according to their needs). The degree of this transfer is greater than in the US, but that's just it - it's only a matter of degree.
pertymcpert 8y ago
No it's not a very recent idea. That's incredibly myopic.