>I guess I am a fan of the work ethic, but I thought that was
>actually a Marxist ideal, self-realization through productive labor.
>But the reason I push markets in their place is not that I think
>they will promote such self-realization, but because they help us
>avoid waste. Even a LaFargian advocate of laziness ought to be
>against waste, if only beacuse it means we would have to work harder
>and longer for less. --jks
Work = self-realization isn't necessarily an unattractive ideal; work
ceases to be alienating, however, only when it is performed without
unwanted sources of determination that exercise power over us as if
they were "forces of nature," as the competitive market as compulsion
does. This is indeed a question of freedom & pleasure & abundance,
as you note. It's just that the market (when it assumes the
character of compulsion) takes away a crucial dimension of freedom &
pleasure from human life: freedom & pleasure to govern our own lives
as we see fit, not as the market sees fit. I do agree with you that
it is only in the context of abundance (though this concept is hard
to define) such freedom & pleasure of self-government become truly
possible. A perpetual shortage of consumer goods (hence the rule of
insecurity & unpleasant surprises) obviously wouldn't do. The
disagreement is that I think the Hayekian critique doesn't prove --
except by fiat of Hayek's assumption that divinely perfect knowledge
is necessary for successful planning -- that planned economy can
never make us enjoy freedom & pleasure & abundance.
Yoshie
