Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Probably a Noob capitalism question...

07-11-2014 , 01:33 PM
Henry17, your own view implicitly involves a system. You're saying that before the government can take property, it must have a legitimate reason. But property and ownership is a completely arbitrary and social construct. One could reverse that and say that all property can be taken by the government or whoever else, unless there is a legitimate reason for someone to keep what they own. The former might seem more correct intuitively but then your system is 'rely on intuition.'

Ok if now we're relying on intuition how about other at least equally valid intuitions that involve taking property from one person and giving it to another for humanitarian reasons. If taxing .01% of the net worth of a rich guy will be enough to fund the creation of vaccines that save the lives of a million people in a plague infested city where he lives, is it ok for the government to tax him? What if appealing to the rich guy's sense of morality is fruitless because he's a jerk and a psychopath and he likes watching people die?

Every philosophical system breaks down, including all the ones that place special importance on individual rights. All forms of libertarianism break down. They all have something in them which slams against common sense intuition or some other more firmly grounded principle.

My view is very pragmatic and utilitarian influenced. I think that we're beyond the point where the money we take from the rich and give to the poor is accomplishing enough to justify it. The poor's problems are cultural and psychological, much of it is simply low IQ, and tax and spend policies won't help that. The wider the inequality, the worse off people's stupidity makes them, which is unfortunate, but I guess the minor upside is that if they can get responsible and work their way up the rewards are greater.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 02:02 PM
I don't think IQ plays into the equation at all fyi. It's purely the upbringing and culture of a person that is the greatest influence in defining their future. This still gives room for the person to separate themselves and create their own path but it is more easily attainable with better conditions early on. I'll take a kid with a 100 IQ in a middle/upper class college educated white collar home near a decent school vs a 130 IQ in a poverty stricken area with a ****ty school all day. The pressure to educate oneself won't be great for the higher IQ kid here and their connections in life will be forever limited by who their friends are growing up.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard III
Henry17, your own view implicitly involves a system. You're saying that before the government can take property, it must have a legitimate reason. But property and ownership is a completely arbitrary and social construct.
How is it arbitrary?

It isn't.

Quote:
One could reverse that and say that all property can be taken by the government or whoever else, unless there is a legitimate reason for someone to keep what they own. The former might seem more correct intuitively but then your system is 'rely on intuition.'
This breaks down into an argument supporting slavery.

Quote:
Ok if now we're relying on intuition how about other at least equally valid intuitions that involve taking property from one person and giving it to another for humanitarian reasons. If taxing .01% of the net worth of a rich guy will be enough to fund the creation of vaccines that save the lives of a million people in a plague infested city where he lives, is it ok for the government to tax him?
You could not justify this based on humanitarian reasons but this would be pretty easy to legitimize regardless. I don't maintain that no wealth distribution is legitimate -- that would be absurd. My objection is that when people discuss these topics they never give any thought to legitimizing their position. They basically just argue that things should be the way they would like them to be which is typically a system that would benefit them.

Quote:
What if appealing to the rich guy's sense of morality is fruitless because he's a jerk and a psychopath and he likes watching people die?
Pluralism does not require that sadists be considered.

Quote:
Every philosophical system breaks down, including all the ones that place special importance on individual rights. All forms of libertarianism break down. They all have something in them which slams against common sense intuition or some other more firmly grounded principle.
I wouldn't agree with this -- hypothetical contractualism does not suffer from this problem.

Quote:
My view is very pragmatic and utilitarian influenced. I think that we're beyond the point where the money we take from the rich and give to the poor is accomplishing enough to justify it.
Any justification that is based on consequences / outcomes is always illegitimate.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 02:36 PM
Freakonomics podcast: "Would a big bucket of wealth really change your life?" (it's free)

Pretty interesting and it's on the subject.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
How is it arbitrary?

It isn't.
Where we draw the line between what is allowed as private good and public good is completely arbitrary.

I am sure that you are aware that you can get from the deontological ideals underlying libertarianism and arrive quite easily at either private property based system as well as a system disallowing private ownership of the means of production.

Quote:
This breaks down into an argument supporting slavery.
That is a consequentialist argument. If consequentialism is invalid...

Quote:
You could not justify this based on humanitarian reasons but this would be pretty easy to legitimize regardless. I don't maintain that no wealth distribution is legitimate -- that would be absurd. My objection is that when people discuss these topics they never give any thought to legitimizing their position. They basically just argue that things should be the way they would like them to be which is typically a system that would benefit them.
The last sentence is absolutely untrue. They stereotypical pro-libertarian person in the US lives in a trailer park and would benefit handsomely from wealth redistribution. The steriotypical person calling for wealth redistribution is in the educated class.

Quote:
I wouldn't agree with this -- hypothetical contractualism does not suffer from this problem.
Contractualism is extremely problematic. It is fine descriptively but it gives nothing normative.

Quote:
Any justification that is based on consequences / outcomes is always illegitimate.
There aren't any other sorts of justifications that don't just state a state of ideals and pretend that they are facts.

It should start with "if private property is a natural right then x, y and z" not "private property is a natural right therefore x, y and z."
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaineTech
I don't think IQ plays into the equation at all fyi. It's purely the upbringing and culture of a person that is the greatest influence in defining their future. This still gives room for the person to separate themselves and create their own path but it is more easily attainable with better conditions early on. I'll take a kid with a 100 IQ in a middle/upper class college educated white collar home near a decent school vs a 130 IQ in a poverty stricken area with a ****ty school all day. The pressure to educate oneself won't be great for the higher IQ kid here and their connections in life will be forever limited by who their friends are growing up.
They have found that it is a belief that "if I do x, y will happen" that drives outperformance. Generally, if you have seen people struggle and not succeed, you should learn (unless you are extremely dense) that "if I do x, y will happen" is not true. If you have seen people struggle and succeed, you should learn (unless you are extremely dense) that "if I do x, y will happen" is true.

I think that is completely in agreement with what you said.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Where we draw the line between what is allowed as private good and public good is completely arbitrary.
I don't believe I've said anything about public goods -- I discussed public reasons which is likely the source of the confusion. Public reasons and public goods are not related despite having the word public in common.

Quote:
That is a consequentialist argument. If consequentialism is invalid...
Pointing out that the position he is advocating leads to consequences he would not support is not arguing for consequentialism -- it is actually arguing against it.

Quote:
The last sentence is absolutely untrue. They stereotypical pro-libertarian person in the US lives in a trailer park and would benefit handsomely from wealth redistribution. The steriotypical person calling for wealth redistribution is in the educated class.
The stereotypical libertarian has mental issues. As people who don't have mental issues we can see how against their own self-interest their position is but from their reality they see it as in their best interest. You are right that the typical egalitarian liberal is educated and does ok but their income is from employment and they have no hope of ever being wealthy.

Quote:
Contractualism is extremely problematic. It is fine descriptively but it gives nothing normative.
What does that even mean?

Quote:
There aren't any other sorts of justifications that don't just state a state of ideals and pretend that they are facts.

It should start with "if private property is a natural right then x, y and z" not "private property is a natural right therefore x, y and z."
I've never said anything about property being a natural right.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
I don't believe I've said anything about public goods -- I discussed public reasons which is likely the source of the confusion. Public reasons and public goods are not related despite having the word public in common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good

We are talking about private property rights, correct?

Quote:
Pointing out that the position he is advocating leads to consequences he would not support is not arguing for consequentialism -- it is actually arguing against it.
All philosophical positions taken to extreme lead to consequences you would not support.

Quote:
The stereotypical libertarian has mental issues. As people who don't have mental issues we can see how against their own self-interest their position is but from their reality they see it as in their best interest. You are right that the typical egalitarian liberal is educated and does ok but their income is from employment and they have no hope of ever being wealthy.
The typical <insert any group here> has no hope of ever being wealthy.

Quote:
What does that even mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractualism

It just describes a stable agreement. If people don't rise up against a government, it means that they are giving at least their implicit support.

It says nothing about what a government ought to do.

Quote:
I've never said anything about property being a natural right.
Then you haven't said anything yet.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good

We are talking about private property rights, correct?
And how does any of this relate to public goods? Also distinguishing between public goods and private goods is rarely difficult so even if you were making some tangential and completely out of the blue statement you'd still be wrong.

Quote:
All philosophical positions taken to extreme lead to consequences you would not support.
No. If you support the principles then you support the outcomes even if they are against your self-interest / your conception of the good. That is the whole point.

Quote:
The typical <insert any group here> has no hope of ever being wealthy.
That is just an observation based on sampling -- the number of people who hold this position who become wealthy is extremely small. That is also the expected outcome because the type of mentality that would support this is not the kind of mentality that leads to wealth.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractualism

It just describes a stable agreement. If people don't rise up against a government, it means that they are giving at least their implicit support.
lol no. Using this ******ed reasoning the guy who hands over his wallet was at least implicitly supporting the mugger taking his money.

Quote:
Then you haven't said anything yet.
I have it just went over your head. I've had this conversation many times with people much much smarter than you which is why I ended it -- Not sure why I responded to Richard III but it was a mistake.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 04:26 PM
I'll agree with BriantheMick that contractualism has its own problems. Even if it is true that a social contract with all agents beginning in the "original position" underlies society, it isn't clear what those agents would agree to in the original position. That's what he means by "descriptive and not normative". And for that matter what is the original position and who is included in it? How would animals be represented in the original position? It happens also that Rawls himself believed and most interpretations of his theory give rise to very redistributionist policies. And Henry if your contractualism is not based on Rawls but on some earlier theory it's going to have even more problems. Rawls spawned modern social contract theory. Everything else is defunct.

Also, when people write their posts, often they're making an implied philosophical argument without actually going into what that argument is. To just dismiss what they write because they didn't justify it on fundamentals is misguided, because you can assume their fundamentals and then attack them if you wish. So someone might say "If we only had to tax the rich .01%, we could give blue collar workers a big raise". This is basically a utilitarian argument. So it's really overly dismissive just to respond to that with "you haven't justified your position, you've stated your feelings".

Where we draw the line with public and private goods is also relevant here. You can have different positions on the spectrum but it has to be justified. Just to say "Property shouldn't be taken without legitimate reasons by the government" is making a non self evident claim on the spectrum that has to be justified. At least, if that is your response to people saying "If we only had to tax the rich .01%, we could give blue collar workers a big raise" then that isn't sufficient.

Societies take many diverse positions on property rights. Communist socieities would say that statement is untrue. The fact that it is possible to take different positions on it, and some societies have, means that it has to be questioned.

Now I can accept it as true, and obviously most reasonable people would, but if you're going to start impugning other people's positions because the fundamental philosophical theory they implicitly espouse is different from yours, even if the position itself is seemingly sensible, then you're going to have to defend your own fundamental philosophical position and not take it for granted.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
And how does any of this relate to public goods? Also distinguishing between public goods and private goods is rarely difficult so even if you were making some tangential and completely out of the blue statement you'd still be wrong.
Wat?!? You really don't understand the relationship between private goods and public goods?!?

Quote:
No. If you support the principles then you support the outcomes even if they are against your self-interest / your conception of the good. That is the whole point.
The "self-interest" part (Rawl's veil of ignorance) and the "conception of the good" (no philosopher ever!) don't go together.

Although it is amusing to say that a principle leads to a consequence, that does not mean that "bacon is good" leads to "obesity."

We could probably get close if we can agree that personal property rights or even liberty itself are not the guiding principles.

Quote:
That is just an observation based on sampling -- the number of people who hold this position who become wealthy is extremely small. That is also the expected outcome because the type of mentality that would support this is not the kind of mentality that leads to wealth.
So Warren Buffet, the Kennedys, etc. are not wealthy?

Quote:
lol no. Using this ******ed reasoning the guy who hands over his wallet was at least implicitly supporting the mugger taking his money.
Then explain your new version of contractualism. I'd really like to hear it. Probably quite ground breaking stuff.

Quote:
I have it just went over your head. I've had this conversation many times with people much much smarter than you which is why I ended it -- Not sure why I responded to Richard III but it was a mistake.
No. Without private property rights being a natural right, you have no grounds to say that denying them is illegitimate. Even Nozick recognized that.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard III
I'll agree with BriantheMick that contractualism has its own problems. Even if it is true that a social contract with all agents beginning in the "original position" underlies society, it isn't clear what those agents would agree to in the original position. That's what he means by "descriptive and not normative". And for that matter what is the original position and who is included in it?
The original position is nothing more than a thought experiment to arrive at what people would agree to if they were not aware of their own conception of the good but only that they had one. It is not groundbreaking as the idea of neutrality in social structures predates Rawls by a lot -- Rawls in just gamified Kant's CI.

Quote:
How would animals be represented in the original position?
Did you just google Rawls or do you really think I haven't heard this one before?

Quote:
It happens also that Rawls himself believed and most interpretations of his theory give rise to very redistributionist policies.
Rawls was wrong to include the difference principle in his theory of justice. It is not supported by his own legitimizing principle.

Quote:
Also, when people write their posts, often they're making an implied philosophical argument without actually going into what that argument is. To just dismiss what they write because they didn't justify it on fundamentals is misguided, because you can assume their fundamentals and then attack them if you wish.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote:
So someone might say "If we only had to tax the rich .01%, we could give blue collar workers a big raise". This is basically a utilitarian argument. So it's really overly dismissive just to respond to that with "you haven't justified your position, you've stated your feelings".
They have not justified their argument because they are not utilitarians they are simply presenting a utilitarian argument at a specific point in time because it gives the outcome they want. These people would not use utilitarianism in different situations and so to just have an ad hoc justification based on what gives us the outcome we want is not legitimate.

Quote:
Where we draw the line with public and private goods is also relevant here. You can have different positions on the spectrum but it has to be justified. Just to say "Property shouldn't be taken without legitimate reasons by the government" is making a non self evident claim on the spectrum that has to be justified. At least, if that is your response to people saying "If we only had to tax the rich .01%, we could give blue collar workers a big raise" then that isn't sufficient.

Societies take many diverse positions on property rights. Communist socieities would say that statement is untrue. The fact that it is possible to take different positions on it, and some societies have, means that it has to be questioned
The only thing I took from these two paragraph is that you don't understand what a public good is.

Quote:
Now I can accept it as true, and obviously most reasonable people would, but if you're going to start impugning other people's positions because the fundamental philosophical theory they implicitly espouse is different from yours, even if the position itself is seemingly sensible, then you're going to have to defend your own fundamental philosophical position and not take it for granted.
My position is that any policy to be legitimate it has to be justified on more than I would prefer that society be like this.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Wat?!? You really don't understand the relationship between private goods and public goods?!?
Yes. It is pretty clear neither of you do. A public good is just a thing from which you can't prevent specific individuals from benefiting. The perfect example is military defence -- there is no way for the military to defend the citizenry from invaders without also defending me. The term is also used to describe things where it would be possible to exclude someone but where it is not practical -- parks, roads, fire service, police service, etc. It also includes things where the benefit is not direct -- having an educated populace, public transportation, health services for others, some environmental protection, etc.

The defining characteristic of a public good is something that is paid for by the collective where it is impossible or impractical to prevent specific individuals from deriving benefit. Public goods have absolutely no relevance to this discussion. The only time public goods are ever relevant is when you're having a free rider discussion and we weren't.

I'm going to save you the embarrassment of going through the rest of your post. You've done a very good job of proving my point of why you should never discuss anything academic in an open forum so thank you for that. What I need from both of you is to get out some paper and write out "I will not use google to fake knowledge of a subject I'm clueless in ever again" -- 500 times should be good.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
What I need from both of you is to get out some paper and write out "I will not use google to fake knowledge of a subject I'm clueless in ever again" -- 500 times should be good.
Lol. It is amazing how easy it is to tell when a person has read exactly one book (or more likely, a pamphlet) on a topic and has come to believe it is the truth.

Go back to teaching the kids who can't talk to girls how to talk to girls.

I'll take comfort in knowing that we grant excludability for wealth.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 06:27 PM
lol Please feel free to explain how public goods were relevant to the subject.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
lol Please feel free to explain how public goods were relevant to the subject.
If we don't grant you the right to privately hold it, wealth is a public good.

(unless you are going to believe some silly thing about you having natural rights)
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 08:55 PM
That is not what a public good means. Since you seem to like wikipedia so much here is their definition

Quote:
A public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others
This is something anyone who has taken poli-sci, philosophy, or economics would know. Now there is no shame in not having studied those disciplines but don't try to fake it.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
That is not what a public good means. Since you seem to like wikipedia so much here is their definition
I hate Wikipedia. The only time I cite it is when I am trying to make fun of someone for not even having a Wikipedia-level knowledge of a topic.

Quote:
This is something anyone who has taken poli-sci, philosophy, or economics would know. Now there is no shame in not having studied those disciplines but don't try to fake it.
And Wikipedia is wrong. Rivalry (in real life) is not a categorical variable. It is a scale on which very few things are non-rivalrous or rivalrous. We aren't concerned (since neither of us is an extremist nutter) with calling a sandwich in your possession "wealth." We would be concerned with the means of productivity, education, health care, etc. (which are by their very nature somewhere between rivalrous and non-rivalrous).

Excludability is purely based on what is granted by others and also backed up by the threat of violence. The non-aggression principle is just childish nonsense.* What is your is yours only to the extent that we (or you, if you have sufficient strength) are willing to apply violent means to maintain it as being yours. This is especially true for things that can be taken away from you through non-violent, non-coercive means such as intellectual property.

*Not picking on Nozick or his predecessors. They are no more silly than Rawls and his followers.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
And Wikipedia is wrong.
The Library of Economics has the same definition.

Quote:
Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption. “Nonexcludability” means that the cost of keeping nonpayers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

Some paper published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute also has the same definition.

Quote:
Economists define a public good as a good having one or both of the charac- teristics of nonexcludability and jointness in consumption. Nonexcludability means that it is difficult to keep people from consuming the good once it has been produced, and jointness in consumption means that once it is produced for one person, additional consumers can consume at no additional cost. Goods that are joint in consumption are also called collective-consumption goods or non- rival consumption goods, and the terms are used interchangeably here.
https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae10_1_1.pdf

damn look like another economics site has the wrong definition

Quote:
Public goods are goods that can be consumed by everybody in a society or nobody at all. They cannot or will not be produced for individual profit, since it is difficult to get people to pay for its large beneficial externalities. It is helpful to think about a public good as one with a large positive externality. A public good is defined as an economic good which possesses two properties: non-rivalrous and non-excludable
http://publicecon.wikispaces.com/Public+Goods

Then there is Auburn.edu

Quote:
Also called collective goods. These are a very special class of goods which cannot practically be withheld from one individual consumer without withholding them from all (the “nonexcludability criterion”) and for which the marginal cost of an additional person consuming them, once they have been produced, is zero (the “nonrivalrous consumption” criterion).
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/public_goods

I could go on for days. This is a basic and accepted term. That we are even having this exchange is ridiculous.

I love how when idiots get cornered -- rather than have the good sense to just sulk away they just keep doubling down even though they know they can't possibly win.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
I love how when idiots get cornered -- rather than have the good sense to just sulk away they just keep doubling down even though they know they can't possibly win.
Not trying to win. Your cited definitions are not in line with one another and certainly don't agree with wiki.

They are variously ignoring or emphasizing the nonrivalrous bit to extremely different extents.

Last edited by BrianTheMick2; 07-11-2014 at 10:21 PM. Reason: also lol mises.org citation
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-11-2014 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17

I love how when idiots get cornered -- rather than have the good sense to just sulk away they just keep doubling down even though they know they can't possibly win.
So much heart though.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-14-2014 , 10:09 AM
I have seen some arguments in this thread about blue collar/middle class or basically middle and lower society members who are above the poverty line in the USA claiming they are now worse off because of the accumulation of wealth from the rich.

I would actually argue that it is what some of them wanted (wealth redistribution) which has caused them to become closer to the breadline than they previously were as wealth has been redistributed globally because of demand for cheaper goods.

Years ago, 20,40,60, the world was less of a global economy than it was today so people in China couldn't compete with their menial jobs where as now they can.

So the creation of opportunity for poor people who had absolutely no shot 20 years ago has lowered the blue collar standard of living in the USA. This would go some way to prove that wealth is not just handed down through generations as some people who would be dirt poor rice farmers decades ago can now manage factories and earn more than a US worker in a country with a lower cost of living with some of them becoming members of the elite.

Basically it seems to me low income earners in the west want wealth redistribution purely for their own gain, they only want it redistributed within their own country. If they had to have their own wealth redistributed globally to make everyone equal - for example sharing with Africans and drastically lowering their standard of living I imagine their opinion would be quite different , even though this is essentially what they want the rich of their own countries to do.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-30-2014 , 12:18 PM
I suppose in your question we assume that a given person needs 50k a year to spend for his daily routine. So why do you say this: "If you're below that threshold you don't have the opportunity to acquire assets and passive income and the gap gradually gets larger between you and the rich." If you have 500k liquid (below threshold) u can accumulate wealth of 25k / year so half of your needed supply. That means that you can still get richer just not as fast. So I agree with you in the concept of the rich getting richer but I dont see the use of the threshold.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-30-2014 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODUK
I have seen some arguments in this thread about blue collar/middle class or basically middle and lower society members who are above the poverty line in the USA claiming they are now worse off because of the accumulation of wealth from the rich.
If my neighbor put NOS in his car it doesn't make my car slower. It just makes his car faster and me more jealous.

Or to say this in another way, wealth distribution has never and will never become a problem in a free country w/ capitalism.
Probably a Noob capitalism question... Quote
07-31-2014 , 04:00 PM

      
m