Probably a Noob capitalism question...
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.
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.
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.
It isn't.
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.
Freakonomics podcast: "Would a big bucket of wealth really change your life?" (it's free)
Pretty interesting and it's on the subject.
Pretty interesting and it's on the subject.
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.
That is a consequentialist argument. If consequentialism is invalid...
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.
Contractualism is extremely problematic. It is fine descriptively but it gives nothing normative.
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 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.
This breaks down into an argument supporting slavery.
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.
I wouldn't agree with this -- hypothetical contractualism does not suffer from this problem.
Any justification that is based on consequences / outcomes is always illegitimate.
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 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.
I think that is completely in agreement with what you said.
That is a consequentialist argument. If consequentialism is invalid...
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.
Contractualism is extremely problematic. It is fine descriptively but it gives nothing normative.
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."
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."
We are talking about private property rights, correct?
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.
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.
What does that even mean?
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.
I've never said anything about property being a natural right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good
We are talking about private property rights, correct?
We are talking about private property rights, correct?
All philosophical positions taken to extreme lead to consequences you would not support.
The typical <insert any group here> has no hope of ever being wealthy.
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 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.
Then you haven't said anything yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
lol no. Using this ******ed reasoning the guy who hands over his wallet was at least implicitly supporting the mugger taking his money.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
lol Please feel free to explain how public goods were relevant to the subject.
(unless you are going to believe some silly thing about you having natural rights)
That is not what a public good means. Since you seem to like wikipedia so much here is their definition
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.
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.
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.
The Library of Economics has the same definition.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html
Some paper published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute also has the same definition.
https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae10_1_1.pdf
damn look like another economics site has the wrong definition
http://publicecon.wikispaces.com/Public+Goods
Then there is Auburn.edu
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.
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.
Some paper published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute also has the same definition.
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.
damn look like another economics site has the wrong definition
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
Then there is Auburn.edu
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).
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.
They are variously ignoring or emphasizing the nonrivalrous bit to extremely different extents.
So much heart though.
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.
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.
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.
Or to say this in another way, wealth distribution has never and will never become a problem in a free country w/ capitalism.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE