"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...

[nclib]

From the political compass...

I voted Strongly Agree.

[Platypus]

I hate this question, because i'm against redistribution in most instances, but I think in some areas it's essential. I usually vote 'agree', sometimes 'disagree'.

[MaC]

stongly disagree.  Very very strongly disagree.  Only Communists vote agree on this one.

[nclib]

I hate this question, because i'm against redistribution in most instances, but I think in some areas it's essential. I usually vote 'agree', sometimes 'disagree'.

While I do support redistribution, I think the question is asking about the principle, not the action.

[Platypus]

which is why i tend to vote 'agree'

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

From each according to his desire, to each according to his merit.

[Dave from Michigan]

strongly disagree

[Alcon]

Strongly disagree.

[MasterJedi]

Strongly Disagree

[© tweed]

Strongly Disagree

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

"From each according to his ability" implies slavery.  Your body and your labor are your own, and you should not be under any obligation to provide it against your will.

Alternative: From each according to his desire.  People should ideally be free to choose the work that gives them the most happiness.

"To each according to his need" is less repugnant, but it all depends on what you define as "need."  We all need food, water, clothing, and shelter, but beyond that?  It is a philosophy that leads to authoritarianism, because there must be an authority to determine what people's needs are, and how goods are to be produced and distributed to meet those needs.

Alternative: To each according to his merit.  People will desire to work more, because they desire the merit to receive more things.  I would qualify this in saying that there are some things that all human beings merit, simply from the meritous dignity of being human.

[Emsworth]

I very strongly disagree with this "principle." Why should people with "ability" be robbed of their hard-earned money for the benefit of someone without "ability"? Why should they work for another person rather than for themselves: is that not slavery?

[Platypus]

I think the basics should be provided to people by the othetr members in the community, such as water, health, immunisatons, etc.

I'm not saying that everyone should be on par, at all, but the rich members of the society have a fundamental obligation to improve the lives of the poorest, even if just in the most basic ways. It also makes the society better for richer citizens.

[ian]

I feel kindof stupid every time I take the test, but what does this phrase actually mean?
My take was that if you are able to do a task, make money doin it.  Am I incorrect?

[ATFFL]

I feel kindof stupid every time I take the test, but what does this phrase actually mean?
My take was that if you are able to do a task, make money doin it.  Am I incorrect?

It's the founding principal of communism.  "From each according to his ability" means that each person contributes what they can.  'To each according to his need" means that everyone gets what they need from a collective pool of what everyone's ability has produced.

If you support it, great.  Let's form a commune.  my ability is deciding what you need.   So you go out, get a job, and I will decide what you get.  SOunds good to me.

It is a childish notion believed by people who have no clue about reality.

[Defarge]

Disagree.  While I too hate this question, because my idealistic heart agrees with it, the system simply doesen't work, and I would like more than I simply need, and should my ability allow me to have more than I need, I demand what is my due.

[Giant Saguaro]

No, strongly disagree. It's the basis for socialism and communism.

[Max Power]

No, strongly disagree. It's the basis for socialism and communism.

[Jake]

Strongly Disagree. This question reeks of collective redistribution of wealth to bring everyone to the same level. Sorry, but even if I support aiding the poor, I don't support communism.

[Colin]

STRONGLY, VEHEMENTLY, SUPER DUPER disagree.

I'm not as eloquent as Emsworth so I wont try to rephrase what he said in my own words.

[dazzleman]

Strongly, strongly disagree.

It's a foolishly idealistic concept that has no basis in reality.

In a situation like that, abilities shrink and needs grow, and everybody is impoverished.  Nobody is going to work very hard if he's going to make the same money as the person who does nothing.  And people won't take care of their own needs if they know other people will do it for them.  The whole idea is absurd.

[opebo]

This question has no bearing on the reality of our social heirarchy, in which position and reward has nothing to do with 'ability'.

[Vincent]

Strongly disagree

To put it simply everyone here would have to work more and have less. Even if they are considered poor by our standards.

[Erc]

Strongly disagree.

Because you can't enforce the first without violating the second or instituting dictatorship.

[opebo]

Please tell me you people don't really believe 'ability' has anything to do with who gets what now.