Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: What is an egalitarian society? Message-ID: <586@topaz.ARPA> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 15:26:29 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.586 Posted: Mon Feb 11 15:26:29 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 06:41:53 EST References: <421@klipper.UUCP> <627@unmvax.UUCP> <6306@boring.UUCP> <705@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 18 >In my opinion, all articles defending libertarianism fail in one point: > IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF MONEY > IN AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY. Hmmm. I don't see how it is possible to have an egalitarian society without money. (note to flamers: I am not making any assertions here one way or the other about whether it is *desireable* to have an egalitarian society.) Consider two persons, Sam and Joe. Sam fixes cars. Joe raises cabbages. Now suppose Sam hates cabbages and Joe's car works fine. How are we to equalize them? How to determine which is richer, and thus take some of his output and give it to the other one? With money, the task is easy. Without it, we are left comparing (quite literally) apples and oranges. --JoSH