Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>
>
> > >Ah! My proposal: That, just as we outlawed the buying and
> > >selling of persons a century and a half ago, we now need to
> > >take the next step in the humanization of "mankind", and
> > >OUTLAW THE RENTING OF PERSONS, i.e., outlaw wage labor. And
> > >should anyone reply: "That's not possible!", I'd be willing
> > >to bet that, if push came to shove, all the Harvard trained
> > >CxOs (<-UFOs?), along with the gret mass of
> > >working men and women, could come up with a way to make it work....
> >
To further thinking in support of the above, Brad wrote:
> (1) Perhaps every child who is not destined to become a professional (doctor,
>lawyer...) > should be taught a skilled craft during their teen years...
Which leads to:
>
> (2) The model of remuneration of work by fee-for-service (the plumber, e.g.), or
>honorarium (as ancient Greek doctors were "paid" -- so I have read).
I fail to see how 'waged labour' is morally different than
'fee-for-service'. Both are improvisations of the same economic tactic
- 'pre-conditional exchange', ie...
'I won't sacrifice my precious time to serve you, (help you fulfil your
goals) unless you promise to provide me with sufficient, pre-agreed
compensation.
Surely if waged labour is to be regarded as so morally 'bad' or
'inferior' that it needs to be outlawed, then, to be consistent,
fee-for-service should be regarded and treated likewise. But perhaps
there's a most subtle, yet all-important distinction between the two
which I seem not to be able to grasp. Please clarify.
Cheers,
Richard
