This is supposed to show that sharing grades (or some other reward) equally, which the writers seem to call "socialism," will lead to failing levels of the production of whatever it is that gets rewarded.

Often writers try to say that this is an argument against universal health care or some other current policy initiative. I am not going to point out how obviously wrong that would be as a characterization of the health care proposals before Congress.

But we should notice a couple of things about the story. Upon reflection it should be clear that this story is not really too instructive.

Note that the teller of the story is assuming that all or the great majority of the students are motivated only by the desire for a higher grade in this course. Almost all students I know would prefer a higher grade to a lower grade, but are they motivated only by the desire for the highest grade? I don't think so. Most students are motivated by a complex of reasons, part of which has to do with getting better grades (which is a short-term thing), part of which has to do with prudential planning for their own long-term future, part of which is based on conceptions of their own personal fulfillment, and part of which is based on their ethics. Some students, for example, major in areas in which they know the average grades are lower than in some other areas.

If we don't make that assumption, how does it change the story? Well, if some of the students are trying to do as well as they can for the sake of the knowledge they will gain and be able to put to use toward success outside of school, if they are trying to do well because they find learning fulfilling, or if they try to learn because of their responsibilities to their fellow man, then the grades would not inexorably drop.

What does motivate people? There is no doubt that many people are strongly motivated by that which well benefit themselves personally. But often that selfish motivation is directed toward long-term success. Such people would have excellent reason to work hard on their class--or their production line--because they know it will benefit them in the long term.

Furthermore, people are often powerfully motivated by concerns for things other than their own selfish welfare. People try to help other people. Witness, for example, people giving to charity, or, for that matter, people writing supposedly instructive analogies for the internet or for newspapers.

The story, therefore, ignores some of the complexities of human motivation, and ignoring them makes the decline of production seem much more plausible than it really would be.

But there are a couple of bigger problems that are ignored by the story. Now I recognize that parables, fables, allegories, and analogies cannot be expected to deal with all of the nuances and fine details of a complex issue. Part of their rhetorical power lies in their brevity, in their quick punch to the stomach.

Yet by ignoring the complexities of the actual situation, the writers of the story create something that is so different from the reality of the situation that the punch has no power to it. It may be quick, but it is lacking in substance.

So here are a couple of complexities that the story is ignoring.

The story is about individual students. Now normally, we hold that individual work deserves an individual grade. But our contributions to society are always part of a group project. Even though I am the one who goes in to the office and works 9 to 5, I am just a member of a team. I control my effort, but the actual production of that which gets rewarded is done by a group as a whole. The postal carrier, for example, can only deliver the mail that has first been delivered to the post office.

All of us work like that. Even the solitary businesswoman, working, say, on her own schedule and in her own garage at restoring vintage cars, is a part of a big group project. The very price she can get for her work is set by the "invisible hand" of the marketplace.

So the story would be a closer analogy to the way we work with people in society if it would talk about the grades that the students should get for doing different tasks on a group project. And on a group project, having everyone get the same grade is quite reasonable.

Here is the last problem with this story. In real life, people have kids, and these kids benefit from or suffer from their parents. They might benefit from the good luck or bad luck of their parents--their winning the lottery, for example. And the kids might benefit from choices their parents make--the parents' choice 25 years ago, for example, to go into the oil business. But the kids have done nothing to deserve these benefits.

The treatment of the next generation is a key element in developing public policy. For example, it is quite right to spend "our" money on free lunches for impoverished children because the children did nothing to deserve their poverty and hunger.

But the story does not reflect that dimension of public policy at all. Suppose we have a story in which the grade that student A gets this semester makes a big, big difference on what student B would have to do five years from now to get a good grade. Would that be fair to student B? Of course not.

Similarly, one of our biggest problems in developing fair and workable public policy lies in treating the innocent fairly. They should not be punished for the bad luck or even the bad decisions of their parents. So, to the degree that we can work it out, we should arrange for all people to have the grades they truly do deserve.

People deserve to be rewarded on the basis of the productivity of the group to which they contribute, and people deserve to have their basic human rights and needs met.