The only stable equilibrium with equality of outcomes is a bit dreary.

I get the point, but I'm not sure I buy it. I think the idea of distributive justice for finances/assets holds across political ideologies in America (?). Perhaps the difference is in the perception of what is actually proportional. My liberal sensibility says the U.S. input:reward ratio is disproportionately skewed toward the elite, but I'd also bet [insert conservative CEO here] doesn't own as many vacation homes as he thinks he should.

FYP. Why should it be otherwise?!

You'd have to be a bit nuts to think the RATIO is skewed towards the elite, as opposed to those who by definition have a ratio of 0.

Because the theory is everyone receives outcomes proportional to their inputs. So an input of 1 might yield a payoff of 1, but if that's true, an input of 100 would be expected to produce a payoff of 100. If these ratios do not hold, people perceive distribution to be unfair.

Right, because there are no wealthy heirs/heiresses that do nothing to get piles gold bricks in return.

An impossible calculation. In fact, who's to say the elite are not underpaid? So, instead we let the market do the math... impersonally, coldly, justly.

Well and humorously stated.

Unfortunately, the 27 specific folk that I was thinking of are with the opposition. Small, but important problem.

The answer, of course, is "Marcus." I only know a couple of them and they both don't believe there is a fate worse than death.*

Hmmm. "Mortals" and "the young" came to mind first if it were just a riddle with no cultural overtones implied, but I expect it is a tv reference.

The first thing that comes to mind in that context is teaching in an all girl's school in Germany a la Blackadder. I'm not sure what someone who doesn't believe that is called, so I leave it behind as unfruitful.

Something or other about the total vortex manipulator also comes to mind, but nothing particularly specific other than it was a fate worse than death.

I'm lost here.

*I am fairly proud of that short paragraph. Has a couple of layers of humor. Fairly upset with myself for typing more.

The real issues are whether one's loved ones should get the scraps you leave behind and whether it can/should be expected that if I do will that I will share my fortune.

It is quite fair to nearly all liberals that those who gamble and win should get to enjoy their winnings and those who contribute most should get rewarded for such.

Liberals and conservatives who aren't extreem expect those who have gathered wealth to spread it around a bit. An oversized tip here and there, getting their shoes shined and buying crap of various sorts goes a long way.

Where we get into problems is that there is some disagreement as to whether my progeny should benefit greatly from my effort or luck and also whether I should contribute more or less to society today. The progeny certainly did nothing to deserve it other than accident of birth, yet I want them to have it.

But that requires assumption that the market is efficient and not influenced by those wielding disproportionate power. I'm not sure that it is (or isn't), or that people are willing to make that concession in this thread. Also, I'm not sure it matters what the market decides. Suppose the hypothetical market spoke and allocated 99% of the resources to 1% of individuals, leaving 99% impoverished with 1% of resources to fight over. Would you accept this cold, yet just answer? I am going to assume that most people would find it to be distributively unjust, immoral, or both.

Unless you think impoverished means not being able to take annual trips to Aruba, nothing like you describe is close to happening. If you think wealth is relative and feel impoverished because some A-hole who is better at making money than you takes his family to the moon every month, I guess you're worries have merit. Face it, the "impoverished" 80 - 99% you speak of in the US are more wealthy than most in the 3rd world and many kings in past years. This is directly related to our system allowing the elite to reap what they sow.

it's more of a would you tax a gift from you to a complete stranger? It's a question do you have liberty to do with you capital whatever you want.

On a side note from and evolution standpoint capital is better of in your siblings hands since it has your genes. In the long run (as to diminish randomness function) it should produce higher utility to society then redistribution. [I admit I'm still on the fence of just how much rand() is influencing your life - given that most of the princes of Saudi Arabia lucked out with that oil]

I can assure you it is not. Peps in power usually put in place high entry barriers to reduce horizontal mobility. Try to form a bank and tell me how it went. I assume this is why masque de Z writes long post in this thread.

"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." - Friedrich Hayek

I see that people talk about fairness, justice and equality when all the questions of private property, taxation, welfare et cetera is being raised.
If we differentiate between two kinds of equality: that which is equality before the law and equality of the factual position or outcome.
Fairness or justice is very often described as treating everyone equal. We acknowledge that man is very different from both nature and nurture, but even though there is this difference we have respect for diversity and therefore aim towards treating everyone as equals (before the law).

The problem is that equality before the law and factual equality are in conflict with each other - they are even contradictory. We know that men are not equal and have very different potential. Therefore, if we treat everyone equal the result must be inequality in the actual position.
When we aim for a certain goal in society and give special privileges to certain people we destroy the moral basis of private property and equality before the law.

This is why we should care about private property; it is an institution which is founded on the moral basis of true justice: that everyone is treated equally with the same rights before the law.

I am from a European country and the socialist idea of aiming for goals in society is almost the basic structure now because of the extend of the welfare state. Treating everyone equally is far from the reality; the wealthy are merely means to ends for the government (and they don't even hide it, when proposing taxes of above 75% on productive people like doctors, laywers, engineers, businessmen etc., to subsidize people for not working.) Both the economic and the moral consequences are anything but desirable.

66 % of the voters in Denmark are dependend on the government economically, while the rest are people in the working force. In effect, people without work can vote to tax working people more, so they can get more and more welfare.

This is something I oppose extremely against. This is when goals justify totalitarian and coercive means.
What you basically is saying is, that because she has become very wealthy (not by frauding, stealing or taking from anyone - but people paying her for whatever service she provides) you think you have a natural given right to decide what her property should be spend on.

Not only is it deeply wrong (in a basic free society) to consider P-Hilton as a means to an end (both according to Aristotle and Hayek), but the corruption that could follow such a moral structure would be catastrophic.
Who should we trust to decide what wealthy peoples money should go to? Who is to say that those who would decide it not would act in their own self-interest and place the money to their own benefit?
No man or group ought to have the power to decide for someone else what their money is to be spend on.

The belief of "I don't think they spend _their_ money right, therefore I have a moral obligation to force their money on what I consider the best way" is a totalitarian view; though the intentions undoubtely must be good, the means to achieve the goal is horrific.
Propossing that it is immoral not to coerce or force someone's wealth to your own goals is beyond the means which I consider desirable in any way.

??? They still input millions of dollars, and get in return something less than infinity.

That opens up new levels of the white elephant problem that I'd like to see opened up.

Would be quite fun to give gifts to enemies who couldn't afford the taxes on them.

Throughout this thread, I've been trying very hard to not note out loud (in hopes that someone else would) that there is a false dichotomy here.

What we should be trying to do is find the correct balance between individual and group rights.

I should also mention that I've also been trying very hard not to yell at people for idiotically thinking that rights exist.

If my genes are excellent for creating wealth from scratch (a very dubious claim), it is probably for the best if my progeny are not also blessed with being born into wealth.

I like that you seem to be acknowledging that it is societal utility that matters here. There are some problems with that, but it is a good starting point.

aarrrghh!

Rights may or may not exist, but since every single person on Earth acts as if they do, I dont think its a particularly interesting question. Like bickering about free will.

I've yet to meet a person who acts like they believe in rights in a philosophical sense.

What people generally mean by "rights" in the real world is "crap that I'll punch you in the nuts if you try to take."

Let's get one thing straight, mister:

a) Baker 1 that makes 10 breads/day gets 10 USD. Baker 2 that makes 50 breads/day gets 50 USD. Baker 2 provides higher utility to the society.

Induction -> people with more money provide more utility to the society/group.*

There is a reason Apple has the 2. biggest hedge fund in the world.

b) all money is debt. Its purchasing power states how much "products" society owns you for services that you have provided to that society. Econ 101.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So when talking about individual and group rights in inheritance terms taking money from someone is simply saying: "Hey, Jack. Thanks, ummm, for all the utility you've provided but we (as a society) are not repaying because ummm, you know. We have rights. And, and.... we must be equal. And <insert false logic here>."

I acknowledge that it is societal utility that matters and that people with more money provide more utility to that society based on free market S/D mechanic. I also acknowledge that market is highly rigged/unfair so the free market mechanic is suppressed in different sectors.


*excluding illegal activities

Yes, such as, for example, their life, their liberty, or their happiness...

Thyat's just what they want.

believing in rights would be about all other peoples lives, liberty and happiness.

Where do you get the silly idea that they sell their loaves for the same amount of money?

Potentially, Baker 2 is a sap. We indirectly get into this sort of thing all the time in "what should I go to school for?" threads.

I'm absolutely positive that I work much less hard and offer at most a 10th the societal benefit as nearly all people who make less money than I do.

A couple of issues. We already tax people's income and (in various places) their wealth. Some sort of argument about them gaining supersized benefits of belonging to a society.

We also already tax their estates.

Haven't seen any negative effects or rich people complaining too much.

Also, we don't pay based on societal utility. I don't think we should either. Too much chance of getting it wrong.

[/quote]I acknowledge that it is societal utility that matters and that people with more money provide more utility to that society based on free market S/D mechanic. I also acknowledge that market is highly rigged/unfair so the free market mechanic is suppressed in different sectors. [/quote]

The free market is suppressed in nearly all sectors. I'm nearly certain that there is little to do that is realistic to change that.

I'm also nearly certain that providing societal utility is not the best way to get rich.

You think that illegal activities provide different levels of societal benefit than legal ones? Lawyers provide more benefit than drug dealers?

Possibly. I don't see them defending those particularly strongly, but I guess they could start doing so.

You are making an addition here that I think is correct. I mispoke when I said "I'll punch you in the nusts" when it should have been "We will all punch you in the nuts."

In general, when someone claims some "right" and it seems like it is a bit off from what people are willing to defend FOR them, they are incorrect in describing it as a right.