Thomas Lunde wrote:
> ( by the way, I see this as the
> implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?)
Since I define work as required human actions, my answer is YES.
> ... to exist is to engage in work.
A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; so
someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are not work
in isolation, but normally work is required for sustenance/survival.
> a strong point was made that the economist's
> valuation of work did not cover many activities such as housework, child
> rearing, care of the aged or infirm, acts of charity and good will and
> mowing the lawn.
all are work IMO
> You seem to indicate that you hold work as being the
> result of wilful decision to act.
I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse.
> Would that include housework? Would it
> include sex? Would it include thinking? Wouldn't each of these activities
> be the result of "a wilful decision to act"?
Yes. And some of the incidences of those acts constitute "work".
> >I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed
> >necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less
> >frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are
> >responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These
> >require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance
> >and solidarity.
>
> Thomas:
>
> The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question
> is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?"
The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance and
solidarity"
Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough!
> I guess we are down to who will pick up the garbage if we give everyone a
> Basic Income? ...
This is a bogus problem in a community that has members with time to do
that work. Rules will be determined and responsibilities allocated. History
shows that it gets done. The how & who are societally determined. Human
values, which vary somewhat individually, will result in decisions getting
the dirty work done, basic income or not. Note that I didn't attempt to
refute the B.I., but implied it was insufficient as a solution to the
problematique.
> Another tack on this, let us imagine that I belong to a community that
> supports me through a Basic Income. And I, fool that I am, I follow my
> interests, which happen to be walking my dog, a totally non-productive
> activity. After several years of this, I awake from my unemployed stupor
> and realize that I know how much exercise a dog needs to be healthy and so
> because I like walking dogs so much, I offer to walk several of my
> neighbours dogs so that they will stay healthy. Now, they can't pay me,
(snip)
> Now let's say my humble efforts, prevented a child from
> being attacked and a worker from having a heart attack through reduced
> stress. None of this is provable, though I'm sure statistics could be found
> to justify almost anything.
Did you ever consider trying your hand at creative writing? :-)
> Have I performed a valuable service to my
> community? Was it the result of responsibility or was it because I found it
> interesting?
Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your
acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities.
> >A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community
> >expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this
> >issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from
> >smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become
> >recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly
> >innocent human action be considered.
>
> Thomas:
>
> However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative
> members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting
Manna from heaven? I don't believe in that stuff. Back to the cornucopian
fallacy again. Every day that our species increases in number, it gets less
secure:
http://library.utoronto.ca/www/pcs/eps.htm
> that through
> an act of fate or accident they will not be disenfranchised from the money
> economy? How about having the feeling that you can stop long enough to take
> some extra training.
That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not
only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time,
place and teachers.
But the community decides, not you or I. Best case scenarios are always
attractive.
> How about taking a year or two off from your forty
> year work life to enjoy your children? How about getting involved for
> several years in a community project that interests you? Work doesn't seem
> to me so burdensome when I'm doing what I want to do rather than what I have
> to do.
Best case scenarios are always attractive.
> Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in
> >behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the
> >total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I
> >also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and
> >future member of society.
>
> Thomas:
>
> "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here.
No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case
scenarios?
> Why can't
> everyone change their behavior to totally support the wise use of the
> resources of the community?
Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. My point is that The
Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good.
>I guess because we are not designed to be
> perfect but to be experiencing creatures and that not all experiences are
> beneficial against some absolute criteria, such as the Commons. But we
> aren't here to be perfect, it is an impossible criteria. We are here to
> experience.
Who said "perfect"? That is a strawman impossibility. Better common future,
maybe?
This is where we fundamentally differ. I don't believe in an objective
purpose for which we are here. That is existential (and subjective)IMO. In
a way, your "here to experience" reminds me of the Beatles' song "All You
Need Is Love".
> >So, I leave it to you to decide if these types of 'responsibilities'
> >constitute a part of the concerns of a list called "Futurework".
> >Dissemination of credits, in itself, is work for the distributor alone.
>
> Thomas:
>
> And you have left us all with a question, "Do I consider that these types of
> responsibilities constitute a part of the concerns of the list called
> FutureWork? Well, it would be presumptious for me to answer for the list
> but as a Listmember, I can voice the opinion of one - myself. Frankly, I
> find the responsibilities argument unproductive.
Unproductive for the community as a whole? You may need to start a list
called 'A Future Without Work'. Or maybe I'm alone in my understanding of
basic English meanings in this discussion.
> I have many concerns which
> I express on FutureWork but "responsibilites" are not one of them. I tend
> to think in terms of cooperation and sharing, rather than duties and
> responsibilities.
I didn't mention "duties". Cooperation and sharing cannot, IMO, occur,
without some decisions about communal FUTURE needs and the responsibility
to ensure that FUTURE. The future *demands* shared responsibility for human
survival; that is the highest WORK I can envision.
Steven Kurtz
Fitzwilliam NH
