Many who have achieved often overestimate their own contribution to the achievement. Of course, many who fail blame their failure on everyone but themselves, too.

Personally, I feel society/state should consider its primary function that its members have a chance to succeed. To find a way to make themselves useful and at the same time be in a society where they can find useful things in return for their contributions.

"from each according to his means, to each according to his need"

well, well, Marxism never dies.

So who determines your needs? and who decides what your means are?

The State of course, and the upper crust of the Communist party has bigger needs than the rest.

I was naive once to think that the fall of the Berlin war marked the end of not only the Soviet Union but also of Marxism what someone called 'the end of history". I was wrong.

Unleashed: Neocommunism, the new world order

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

I believe that person's position in society, while partly of their own making, is largely a result of their natural abilities, their upbringing and the opportunities they have been given.

I probably agree, if any position on this question makes sense at all. Even if someone succeeds because they are more motivated than someone else, surely their motivation has precedents, some of which they did not control.

This leads me to the conclusion that a social system that takes conforms to the principal of "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" is most appropriate.

This seems to be an ethical (or unethical) principle, not an economic one?

Would that be the Greed Instinct and the gratification of the Greed Instinct?

We do rather worship greed in capitalistic societies.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

I believe that person's position in society, while partly of their own making, is largely a result of their natural abilities, their upbringing and the opportunities they have been given. This leads me to the conclusion that a social system that takes conforms to the principal of "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" is most appropriate.

Others believe the, opposite, that with sufficient effort, anyone in a largely free society can achieve anything they want to, and hence people should be encouraged to work harder by reducing support for those least well off and taking as little as possible from those most well off.

Is this different understanding of how society operates (basically how socially mobile people are able to be in society) the reason why we are so often talking past each other on issues such as healthcare?

I think that many people in your part of the world still subconsciously behave as if they are still part of a feudal society in which the ruler protected the serfs from harm in return for control over them. Having been taught self-sufficiency was a virtue from an early age, I don't feel the need to subjugate myself to a greater authority.
Unfortunately, people like me are becoming extinct in the US. They are being replaced with intellectually lazy people that would rather trade freedom for security. That's the war that is being waged in the US today.
Healthcare is just the latest battleground in the war for control over our own destinies. The "haves" want their freedom, while the "have-nots" want the "have's" money so that they can feel secure.

Originally Posted by simone

Would that be the Greed Instinct and the gratification of the Greed Instinct?

We do rather worship greed in capitalistic societies.

need rhymes with greed