3 ms·

I don't know why this was downvoted, I disagree with you, but this does show reasoning. I do not think I am in a mono-culture though. I am rather focused on f

I don't know why this was downvoted, I disagree with you, but this does show reasoning. I do not think I am in a mono-culture though. I am rather focused on few subsets that share some interests with me. That interest is what makes them important to me, but within those communities of importance I am exposed to a variety of viewpoints outside that particular interest. I do not think that this leads to political polarization. Now, if the only "interest communities" were by political party this may be true, but for someone with non-political party "interest communities" you are likely to be exposed to a wide variety of politicals views. I have both major parties and some independents in my workplace for instance. A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself and isolating themselves from the rest of society. This is a non-sequitor from your other points. Greater political polarization does not imply a greater divide between rich or poor. As for how it ends, that depends on how people get their wealth. If they get it by creating new wealth and innovation, then yes it will end well. Yes, there will then be enormous division between the wealthy and the poor, but the wealthy will become wealthy precisely by improving the world for everyone, including the poorest. Also in such a society the poor have at least a chance to become wealthy (perhaps not a statistically good one, but a genuince chance). If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. One place to look for a well thought out reasoning of this is http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html .

drunkpotato 17y ago
If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. There is trouble in rhetoric like this. You have asserted an equivalence class of taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft, which are three different things. Taxes are the dues you pay to the society in which you live. In a democratic society, you get one vote in how those dues are spent, and a voice to convince others that your way is right. Of course, money talks, and this process can be corrupted in innumerable ways. Wealth redistribution happens on a large scale through a pattern of market forces, governmental intervention, and other economic and psychological factors. The last forty years have seen a massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., and it's not in favor of the lower 80%. For many reasons, the ethics of which are fervently debated, this wealth redistribution has been one-way. Theft is a crime involving the unlawful taking of physical goods. By asserting this equivalence class, you have already partaken in massive rhetorical fraud which is harming our ability to engage in reasonable debate.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  You are misinterpreting my intent. Perhaps I was not clear, though I thought I was. What I was saying is that if someone becomes rich through any of those means than it is almost certainly immoral (note the almost) and that it will most likely lead to problems in society. (Again, note I am talking about people beocming rich this way. Using wealth redistribution to say gauruntee a certain minimum income is a much more complicated situation. Having The government step in and take vast amounts of wealth from some people in order to hand it to one or two people specifically to make them rich is almost certainly going to lead to ruin.) Taxes are necessary. Not good, but necessary, and I have no hesitation paying a reasonable amount of taxes to provide for necessary functions of government. But, if people are being taxed specifically to make some noble rich then it is both immoral and will lead to problems for society. Wealth redistribution for the purpose of making some wealthy is tantamount to theft, just government authorized. There are some examples of this that have been in the news lately from Afghanistan were public lands are simply handed over to friends of high government officials either completely free or for a pittance. To summarize and be completly clear: In the context of being done specifically to make a person or small priveleged group wealthy, taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are effectively the same. This was a pattern that is mostly seen in ancient feudalisms or some modern third world countries. In the case of being done in an attempt to legitimately improve society then taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are three very different things.
  - drunkpotato 17y ago
    Thank you for the clarification.
jimbokun 17y ago
From gap: "The rich people I know drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, have the same kind of furniture, and eat the same foods as my other friends. Their houses are in different neighborhoods, or if in the same neighborhood are different sizes, but within them life is similar." It is likely that PG's friends are from roughly similar neighborhoods, and have fairly similar lives. However, all of their lives are probably very different from people in inner city Baltimore, or an impoverished small town in the mid-west. In addition to stealing, I do not think he gives sufficient weight to crony-ism as a means of acquiring wealth. We all know that there are a lot of wealthy people in the finance industry whose wealth was preserved, at least in part, by government intervention. Add to that wealthy executives sitting on each other's boards and voting each other pay raises. And lobbying efforts that maintain the competitive position of existing large companies over smaller businesses. And the inherent advantages in having wealthy family in networking and introductions granting access to high paying jobs. In short, I think there is a broad gray area between stealing wealth and creating it that is more complex than Graham's essay suggests. Empirically, there is much evidence to suggest that the fortunes of the media American has been declining for a few decades now. It is difficult to see, then, why the median American should favor the continuation of the current system that promotes increasingly unequal distribution of wealth.

drunkpotato 17y ago

If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. There is trouble in rhetoric like this. You have asserted an equivalence class of taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft, which are three different things. Taxes are the dues you pay to the society in which you live. In a democratic society, you get one vote in how those dues are spent, and a voice to convince others that your way is right. Of course, money talks, and this process can be corrupted in innumerable ways. Wealth redistribution happens on a large scale through a pattern of market forces, governmental intervention, and other economic and psychological factors. The last forty years have seen a massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., and it's not in favor of the lower 80%. For many reasons, the ethics of which are fervently debated, this wealth redistribution has been one-way. Theft is a crime involving the unlawful taking of physical goods. By asserting this equivalence class, you have already partaken in massive rhetorical fraud which is harming our ability to engage in reasonable debate.

timwiseman 17y ago
You are misinterpreting my intent. Perhaps I was not clear, though I thought I was. What I was saying is that if someone becomes rich through any of those means than it is almost certainly immoral (note the almost) and that it will most likely lead to problems in society. (Again, note I am talking about people beocming rich this way. Using wealth redistribution to say gauruntee a certain minimum income is a much more complicated situation. Having The government step in and take vast amounts of wealth from some people in order to hand it to one or two people specifically to make them rich is almost certainly going to lead to ruin.) Taxes are necessary. Not good, but necessary, and I have no hesitation paying a reasonable amount of taxes to provide for necessary functions of government. But, if people are being taxed specifically to make some noble rich then it is both immoral and will lead to problems for society. Wealth redistribution for the purpose of making some wealthy is tantamount to theft, just government authorized. There are some examples of this that have been in the news lately from Afghanistan were public lands are simply handed over to friends of high government officials either completely free or for a pittance. To summarize and be completly clear: In the context of being done specifically to make a person or small priveleged group wealthy, taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are effectively the same. This was a pattern that is mostly seen in ancient feudalisms or some modern third world countries. In the case of being done in an attempt to legitimately improve society then taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are three very different things.
- drunkpotato 17y ago
  Thank you for the clarification.

jimbokun 17y ago

From gap: "The rich people I know drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, have the same kind of furniture, and eat the same foods as my other friends. Their houses are in different neighborhoods, or if in the same neighborhood are different sizes, but within them life is similar." It is likely that PG's friends are from roughly similar neighborhoods, and have fairly similar lives. However, all of their lives are probably very different from people in inner city Baltimore, or an impoverished small town in the mid-west. In addition to stealing, I do not think he gives sufficient weight to crony-ism as a means of acquiring wealth. We all know that there are a lot of wealthy people in the finance industry whose wealth was preserved, at least in part, by government intervention. Add to that wealthy executives sitting on each other's boards and voting each other pay raises. And lobbying efforts that maintain the competitive position of existing large companies over smaller businesses. And the inherent advantages in having wealthy family in networking and introductions granting access to high paying jobs. In short, I think there is a broad gray area between stealing wealth and creating it that is more complex than Graham's essay suggests. Empirically, there is much evidence to suggest that the fortunes of the media American has been declining for a few decades now. It is difficult to see, then, why the median American should favor the continuation of the current system that promotes increasingly unequal distribution of wealth.