5 ms·

The top 20% aren't benefitting from everyone else's system, they are benefiting by the lack of rules and control from others (essentially freedom) and their own

The top 20% aren't benefitting from everyone else's system, they are benefiting by the lack of rules and control from others (essentially freedom) and their own ingenuity. In other words, the top 20% aren't benefiting at the sacrifice of any one else... they are creating new wealth. And, it's frankly none anyone else's concern, in general, how much wealth they choose to create for themselves. Consider if you would, yourself living on your own remote property. Suppose you have an excellent system of agriculture and infrastructure that you engineered yourself... which is immensely productive. Now suppose another individual migrates to that location and you then create rules b/w you and said person to respect each other's property. All the sudden, are you benefiting from your new society's system of rules and his agreement not to harm to you? No; you are benefitting from you own ingenuity and labor, as you were before he arrived. You are profiting from your own freedom and the use of your own mind, as you did before.

crc32 17y ago
This is a rather strange analogy. Suppose that once this new individual arrives, the rules that I agree with him are "you pay me x percent of your income, and you may use my agriculture and infrastructure". In this context you can call it rent. However extend that to an entire country with a ruling class, and you may rename it taxation. When democracy emerges and the ruling class becomes the people, then we are back where we started. While I disagree any implication that the sole basis of taxation should be an assessment of "how much have you used"; I agree that this should be a part of it. If Google benefits from publicly funded UK/Irish IT infrastructure, then it is fair to tax them for the benefit recieved.
pchristensen 17y ago
Let's say that rather than peacefully settle next to you, he decides to take the fruits of your labor by threat (or use) of violence. Then, you either have to give up your wealth or focus on defense against violence instead of being industrious. Let's say you make an agreement that this neighbor that you'll give him food throughout the year in exchange for him repairing your infrastructure at the end of the harvest. If he takes the food but then doesn't help you when you need it, what do you do? You either have to fight him or cease dealing with him and absorb the loss. Either way you're worse off. Lets say your skill is canning and preserving food. Bartering with food producers is easy since you fill a mutual need with each other, but bartering with blacksmiths, bankers, and people that provide other services is much harder. You have to trade your services to people that value it less, or spend a lot more of your time to make arrangements. Any of which could be reneged on (see previous paragraph). Hence government monopoly on force, contract law, and currency. Three things we've had for so long that we forget they're there. Three (of many) intangible things that you gain increasing benefit from the wealthier you are. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Michael Bloomberg would not have become billionaires living in the 1500s, nor if they were born in Zimbabwe (well, I guess they could have been trillionaires in Zimbabwe but you know what I mean).

crc32 17y ago

This is a rather strange analogy. Suppose that once this new individual arrives, the rules that I agree with him are "you pay me x percent of your income, and you may use my agriculture and infrastructure". In this context you can call it rent. However extend that to an entire country with a ruling class, and you may rename it taxation. When democracy emerges and the ruling class becomes the people, then we are back where we started. While I disagree any implication that the sole basis of taxation should be an assessment of "how much have you used"; I agree that this should be a part of it. If Google benefits from publicly funded UK/Irish IT infrastructure, then it is fair to tax them for the benefit recieved.

pchristensen 17y ago

Let's say that rather than peacefully settle next to you, he decides to take the fruits of your labor by threat (or use) of violence. Then, you either have to give up your wealth or focus on defense against violence instead of being industrious. Let's say you make an agreement that this neighbor that you'll give him food throughout the year in exchange for him repairing your infrastructure at the end of the harvest. If he takes the food but then doesn't help you when you need it, what do you do? You either have to fight him or cease dealing with him and absorb the loss. Either way you're worse off. Lets say your skill is canning and preserving food. Bartering with food producers is easy since you fill a mutual need with each other, but bartering with blacksmiths, bankers, and people that provide other services is much harder. You have to trade your services to people that value it less, or spend a lot more of your time to make arrangements. Any of which could be reneged on (see previous paragraph). Hence government monopoly on force, contract law, and currency. Three things we've had for so long that we forget they're there. Three (of many) intangible things that you gain increasing benefit from the wealthier you are. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Michael Bloomberg would not have become billionaires living in the 1500s, nor if they were born in Zimbabwe (well, I guess they could have been trillionaires in Zimbabwe but you know what I mean).