Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 2, 2005 22:46 UTC (Wed) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550)
In reply to: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements by jwb
Parent article: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Hmm, interesting how people react. If you take the trouble to penetrate beneath the perhaps-not-so-apt use of words, you realise he's not anti-anyone, he's making a worthwhile comment about the value of free time, and that rightly understood, laziness can be a virtue. And in these days when there has never been such pressure to compete and perform, let us not say that value is unimportant. See, just one example, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767907698/ .

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:08 UTC (Wed) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

I guess he would have garnered more support for his statement had it been a generalized one about a group of murdered individuals being little Eichmanns.

Sorry. This is getting way off topic. Maybe we should take it to the blogosphere. Any suggestions? (I don't have one myself.) Only half kidding, here.

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:14 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]

Or, on an alternate line of thought: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580085520

My wife bought this book recently and it has a refreshingly different perspective--I thought maybe you all might appreciate it... :-)

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:44 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, he was making an economic point, not a racist one. But he demonstrated a lack of empathy in wording it the way he did. Someone else might have had the communication skill to make that point without the slightest bit of offensiveness.

Bruce

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:52 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link]

Maybe he was trying to make an economic point but he inadvertently revealed his rather racist and, frankly, nonsensical viewpoint. For instance, the piece is centered around the assertion (never justified with evidence) that individuals that are paid less will not work as hard.

This is utter nonsense.

Statistically, the vast majority of people do not work because it is enjoyable. People work so they have the means to survive. Therefore the cost of subsistence will always dictate the minimum work required of an individual. If you pay a person less, they will have to work more. If you pay a person more, they will have the luxury of less work ("free time"), unnecessary luxury goods or both.

It should be obvious, therefore, that the most effective way to extract the most work out of an individual is to pay them such that for them to earn enough to survive they must work to the maximimum of their physical ability. A subsistence wage.

Russ Nelson doesn't know what he's writing about.

Idleness is good

Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:46 UTC (Wed) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

[R]ightly understood, laziness can be a virtue.

Some years ago (never mind exactly how many) my high-school English teacher accused me of not paying sufficient attention in class, or some such.

So, I went out and bought a copy of Bertrand Russell's In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays, and conspicuously read it in class. She never said anything about it.