RE: Paying members of group for work | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Edward J OConnell (ejo![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:42:55 -0500 (EST) |
Reminds me a little of BF Skinners Walden Two. I would only say that in some relationships, a free market can have a curiously unfullfilling, community eroding effect. Allowing dollars to intersect with credits will have the effect of introducing the standard consumerist hierarchy into the culture. Of course, it *will* help the trains run on time, I've a feeling. But I've noticed a reluctance, by some, to equate work for community with money with friendship/family. Could there be something in community that overides comparative advantage and Adam Smiths invisible hands? The broader culture is based entirely on the market. This is in part what some people are trying to get away from, IMO. Old style cohousing. Masters and servants! I think anything that everyone agrees to will probably work fine. This is all theoretical to me, so dont' pay any attention. We're still in the shopping around stages. I'm interested in what people think. That was just my two cents. If you'll pardon the expression! E. Jay O'Connell_____________________________________ejo [at] world.std.com "God does not play dice with the Universe"--A Einstein "No, she plays SuperScratch-Card Wingo (TM)"--Me. ____________________________________________________________________ Information Wants to Be Free PGP Public Key available by Finger
-
Paying members of group for work Judy, February 10 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work Rob Sandelin, February 10 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work BARANSKI, February 15 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work Edward J OConnell, February 15 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work Rob Sandelin, February 15 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work IAN_HIG, February 15 1994
- RE: Paying members of group for work BARANSKI, February 16 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.