[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no gaming the system, and there is no forbidding. It is not a hurt to someone if another person is making more money. That is an imaginary hurt, and therefore could not be used to justify anger? The same goes for someone making less money. As long as each person knows that his standard of living is guaranteed so that he never has to worry about the possibility of falling below if times get tough, there is no justification in being angry that someone took a job that pays less than someone else. This system satisfies the whole human race because no one can be hurt.

It seems to me that your usage of the term "hurt" is unique. People feel hurt and injured based on their feelings. And their feelings justify that hurt. So, People who are not satisfied with their standard of living as legitimately "hurt" as someone who is well-off and has his/her wage reduced to finance income maintenance of someone else. So, I really don't see how your response addresses my concern.

Perhaps, in your system, "justified hurt" is ascertained by someone(s) other than the actual person. Unless everyone can agree the standards for "justifiable hurt" and the measurement of "justifiable hurt", gaming the system is inevitable under current human psychology.

If you are also claiming that humans will change so that gaming will not occur and that all will agree on what "justifiable hurt" is and how it should be addressed, then your philosophy is utopian in nature. There is nothing wrong with utopian philosophy and proposals as long as they are recognized as such. But their very nature makes them unconvincing and/or unpalatable to the unbelievers.