[ox-en] Re: Model of humans

> I think the benefit-seeking actor is fine. And Selbstentfaltung is one
> of the highest forms of benefit.
>    
Benefit for whom? For self and/or others? But what's a benefit?
> Work can be Selbstentfaltung - labor can not.
>    
Toil is another good word. There is such a thing as a "labour of love",
but not a "toil of love".
> Sorry, I think the "selfish" is too easy and the "lazy" is certainly
> wrong. If humans were just lazy they won't be at all. Look at
> children. They are busy all the time. If they would be lazy they would
> not learn and thus would not grow up. Also if humans would be lazy in
> their spare time they would not do sports or things because this is
> certainly not lazy.
>    
Sure. See http://www.altruists.org/ae604, intended to discredit the whole
vision of "Homo economicus", That's a post-hoc, (very) pseudo-
scientific rationalisation promoted by plutarchs and their minions under
the name of "economic literacy". See http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/505
(end of hour 1) for some of my findings on this topic.
>> when designing a new economy with a
>> new social formation: i would propose that it must be sufficient to
>> assume well educated and skilled and responsibility loving members of
>> any kind of new society, but better not hoping that they all over
>> sudden all become unlimited altruistic and work all day long
>>      
> Well, Selbstentfaltung is the opposite of altruism. I still don't
> understand how people can think it is the same.
>    
Relationships with other people are essential to my life - not only for 
my material survival,
but for me to make sense of the world, and feel at home in it.
I look forward to an economic system in which I can priority to 
relationships, rather than
be concerned about fiat tokens of empire.

Selbstenfaltung may be different for others, but for me it's about 
discovering my place in
relation to the rest of the world, and stretching myself into it. The 
psychopathic/autistic
make up only a very small proportion of people, so I think most people, 
given the choice,
would like to find a role in harmony with others, rather than in isolation.
>> There are a lot of things which can't be produced using programmable
>> machines, and so they will remain to be scarce. Also a lot of
>> qualifications and abilities will remain scarce, which means: here is
>> a person who is able to perform certain tasks, an there is a person
>> which cannot do this itself, and therefore wants this other person to
>> do it. So there will still be exchange of work, a medicinist goes to
>> psychologist, or wants handmade shoes, and the person who likes to
>> make shoes has stung in his finger, or has to see the doctor for some
>> other reason. So they have to exchange their performed works. How will
>> they do that?
>>      
People doing things for one another doesn't imply market-style exchange.
e.g. Gift Economies.
> Why do you think that there needs to be a means of exchange if nobody
> is able to make alienated use of others work? You are talking of
> physicians. From an ethical point of view: Isn't it the duty of a
> physician to help *everybody* who needs it? Unconditionally? In an
> ethical sense: Isn't requiring money from the one needing medical care
> exploitation already?
>    
I see a post-money setting in which doctors doctor because they can, and
because they think it's right to. That doesn't say anything about 
who/how/why
they will doctor. Without "the man" to work for, people will probably reach
many different conclusions about those issues.
> I totally agree that there will be a division of work (sic!). But if
> my work can not be sold and purchased because there is no labor market
> any more: Why should I require money for it? Why should anybody? Isn't
> it this way in well-known non-exchange based relationships like
> families and love relationships?
>    
Bearing the above in mind, I can see a future taboo against some cases of
conditional exchange. e.g. I will not treat your life threatening 
condition unless
you give me some magic beans. In another context, it makes perfect sense.
e.g. I will perform an operation on you unless someone gives me use of a
sterile operating theatre for 3 hours and some trained staff.
> Your model of a human seems to imply the strong urge for exploitation
> somehow. How? Why?
>    
That is what people are told people are. In most places in the world,
the lie of Homo economicus is reinforced hundreds of times a day.

At the risk of URL bombing this thread, You might enjoy an MP3 I 
published last
week, Wage Slavery & Moral Dumbing Down, at
http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/506

Robin

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]