Putting all your breadfruit in one basket
And why do they call it breadfruit?
We take a trip to the tropical paradise of Marjon. The people live an idyllic life and are governed by a Community Council. All decisions must be unanimous. One night someone proposes that their crops should be owned collectively and shared out evenly according to need. The Marxists have been in town peddling their own brand of pseudo-religious irrationality.
No one is much interested. It seems to promote laziness since anyone can help themselves to the communal store of breadfruit. No one is in need anyway, and if they want more, they can grow more.
Is the council member right?
Well, in Marjon, the answer seems to be yes. If no one wants food, then there seems no point in a communal store of food. Society seems happy and stable, but if things went pear-shaped – unlikely though that prospect seems to be – then the Marjonians might be up in arms and down in breadfruit.
But even if everything wasn't so idyllic, why should there be any sharing? My stuff is my stuff and not anyone else's. I also respect that what's not mine isn't mine to take, unless I can afford to buy it. However, if I'm deprived of some necessity by someone else, then I'd be all into this sharing thing. On the other hand, if I'm merely jealous or resentful, then what right do I have to start making demands? If anything, I'm probably just being greedy, but I'm hiding that greed by exaggerating how much I supposedly lack.
Everyone should have enough at least, but if they have it, they don't need more; and if they don't have enough, who is responsible for ensuring it's supplied? The government directly? The government as an intermediary? A supplier who wants to be paid (possibly by people who can't afford it)?
Tomorrow: climate change, social change.
We take a trip to the tropical paradise of Marjon. The people live an idyllic life and are governed by a Community Council. All decisions must be unanimous. One night someone proposes that their crops should be owned collectively and shared out evenly according to need. The Marxists have been in town peddling their own brand of pseudo-religious irrationality.
No one is much interested. It seems to promote laziness since anyone can help themselves to the communal store of breadfruit. No one is in need anyway, and if they want more, they can grow more.
Is the council member right?
Well, in Marjon, the answer seems to be yes. If no one wants food, then there seems no point in a communal store of food. Society seems happy and stable, but if things went pear-shaped – unlikely though that prospect seems to be – then the Marjonians might be up in arms and down in breadfruit.
But even if everything wasn't so idyllic, why should there be any sharing? My stuff is my stuff and not anyone else's. I also respect that what's not mine isn't mine to take, unless I can afford to buy it. However, if I'm deprived of some necessity by someone else, then I'd be all into this sharing thing. On the other hand, if I'm merely jealous or resentful, then what right do I have to start making demands? If anything, I'm probably just being greedy, but I'm hiding that greed by exaggerating how much I supposedly lack.
Everyone should have enough at least, but if they have it, they don't need more; and if they don't have enough, who is responsible for ensuring it's supplied? The government directly? The government as an intermediary? A supplier who wants to be paid (possibly by people who can't afford it)?
Tomorrow: climate change, social change.
Comments