# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Explain why is this premise is wrong.

## Ibn.AL.Muqafaa

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
What is wrong with this statement? 
If its is applied in the free market, and X owns a small business he or she works as much as he/she needs and according to his/her abilities, and if they choose to they can work more.

----------


## Zippyjuan

What if nobody is interested in your abilities? Or lots of people are as good if not better at them?   Will you be able to get what you need? If your special skill is say tying your shoes can you earn enough to meet your needs by doing that?

----------


## Danke

*The Great Thanksgiving Hoax*https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1

----------


## devil21

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
> What is wrong with this statement? 
> If its is applied in the free market, and X owns a small business he or she works as much as he/she needs and according to his/her abilities, and if they choose to they can work more.


Regarding the quote in general:
It's not "wrong", per se.  The problem is that it would only work in a fantasy world were everyone is altruistic and stays that way.  Great in theory but has human nature/history ever shown this to be realistic and sustainable?  Biological needs to survive and continue one's own bloodline eventually overtake the desire to help the other guy.  There are individual exceptions, of course, but on the whole it's not realistic.

I don't understand the application of the quote to your free market scenario, though.  The quote requires two people but your example contains only one person.

(I also ignore how close your handle is to essentially being I BEEN A MUFUCKER.....no disrespect intended but yeah)

----------


## juleswin

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
> What is wrong with this statement? 
> If its is applied in the free market, and X owns a small business he or she works as much as he/she needs and according to his/her abilities, and if they choose to they can work more.


The second part of the sentence is the problematic part. I need loads of stuff that my ability cannot buy me. What do I do?

----------


## AZJoe

First, it is not a premise, but rather a mandate to control the free choices of others. Where does such a mandate lead? Apply it to simple scenarios: 

Ben never graduated high school and has limited skills and lacks discipline to develop greater skills. Therefore his abilities are limited. He is only expected to put boxes and items on shelves, and maybe tab the amounts he puts – very routine work. Therefore he has very low expectation requirements according to his ability.
Nevertheless Ben has eight children so has very high needs. Plus Ben is not capable of handling much of his own budget and affairs so He requires additional assistance for someone to come and help with routine care of his children, hygiene, basic budgeting and shopping. Therefore Ben gets a higher general salary according to his higher needs.

Paul however is not only very bright, but also dependable, studious and disciplined. He must go to extended education and learn mathematics and engineering and put in long hours because he has the ability. He works as an aircraft engineer designing systems for flight and braking and maneuvering and sensing various inputs and stresses. Because he has the ability, He is held accountable for the lives of others and responsible if something fails. It is very stressful and he is expected to put in hard work and long hours at his job.
Meanwhile Paul has only two children and is very responsible. Therefore his needs are very low compared to Ben and so Paul receives less than half Ben’s salary according to Paul’s needs.

From each according to their ability: Paul must work much longer hours, requiring many years of training, at far more stressful occupation with magnitudes greater responsibility.
To each according to their needs: Ben gets twice the salary of Paul because Ben is less responsible, less disciplined and less skilled and has far greater needs.

What does such a system tend to promote? What does such a system penalize? Where do the incentives lead? Is it a system of liberty and freedom? Does it respect the rights of the individual to decide for themselves what they are willing to pay for other's services; and to demand for their own skills?

----------


## juleswin

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
> What is wrong with this statement? 
> If its is applied in the free market, and X owns a small business he or she works as much as he/she needs and according to his/her abilities, and if they choose to they can work more.


You are a smart, articulate person. You grew up in a socialist society and was able to embrace the free market to the point where you want to start a movement in your country..

Now can you try and tell the forum how you understand the second part of the sentence?

----------


## timosman



----------


## TheCount

If you don't reward a person for improving their abilities, they won't.

In a society where I get the same result no matter how hard I work or how much education I get, why would I bother to work hard or go through difficult schooling for a particular profession?

----------


## timosman

> If you don't reward a person for improving their abilities, they won't.
> 
> In a society where I get the same result no matter how hard I work or how much education I get, why would I bother to work hard or go through difficult schooling for a particular profession?


You have not embraced the growth mindset. Your mandatory reeducation will begin Monday, 6am sharp.

----------


## TheCount

> You have not embraced the growth mindset. Your mandatory reeducation will begin Monday, 6am sharp.


Will I get a pay raise afterwards?

----------


## timosman

> Will I get a pay raise afterwards?


This is not about any raise. This is about you being able to keep your job.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
> 
> What is wrong with this statement?


If we're talking voluntary communism (which communists generally identify as the end goal of their revolution), the problem is that it's a system for angels, not human beings. Angels may work as hard as their abilities allow despite how hard they work having no bearing on their reward (they receive what they "need" regardless), but human beings will not. Human beings, if given the option to slack off, or not work at all, while still receiving the same reward as if they worked as hard as possible, will do so. 

If we're talking coercive communism (which is what communism always means in practice, being the only form of communism which is actually possible), what this motto means is slavery - the state forces people to work as hard as possible in exchange for what the state determines they need. Apart from any ethical considerations, the problem with this system is that it's extremely inefficient - slaves are dramatically less productive than free people with a profit motive. Imagine telling a slave "Hey you, invent the internet, or I'll whip you!" Nonsense, right? The master doesn't even know what the internet is, otherwise it would already exist, and there'd be no need for the slave to invent it. 




> If its is applied in the free market, and X owns a small business he or she works as much as he/she needs and according to his/her abilities, and if they choose to they can work more.


That's not what the motto has historically meant, and I don't see much value in trying to apply it that way. 

A better motto for the free market might be, "from each what he chooses to give, to each what others choose to give him in exchange."

----------


## timosman

You are not an angel!? Off to a reeducation camp you go!

----------


## phill4paul

> A better motto for the free market might be, "from each what he chooses to give, to each what others choose to give him in exchange."


   Or perhaps "From each what they choose to earn or give, to each what they choose to earn or be given."

----------


## oyarde

There will always be poor people . That is what private charity is for . Most will flourish in a free market and some will share excess . Simple .

----------


## oyarde

> *The Great Thanksgiving Hoax*https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1


They were lazy  , weak and not very bright . I would have lead a great war party against them and exterminated these communists before they spread disease .LOL

----------


## Danke

> They were lazy  , weak and not very bright . I would have lead a great war party against them and exterminated these communists before they spread disease .LOL


No pussy footing around in Minnesota

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They were lazy  , weak and not very bright . I would have lead a great war party against them and exterminated these communists before they spread disease .LOL


But then who would make the firewater?

----------


## timosman

> But then who would make the firewater?


Or bring the running face sickness.

----------


## otherone

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 
> What is wrong with this statement?


"from" and "to" requires a middle man, who typically produces nothing, except coercive force.

----------


## idiom

"From each according to his ability" _incentivizes_ people to reduce their ability.
"To each according to their need" _incentivizes_ people to increase their need.

It is corrosive and immoral.

If you want people to increase their ability then you need to reward it. If you want them to reduce their needs then you need to reward that too. Capitalism does both which is why it results in an unstoppable increase in ability.

----------

