4 ms·
You shouldn't, but this example is not the way the existing capitalist economies of the world work. In your example, a shared resource has labor applied to mee
by jly 9y ago
You shouldn't, but this example is not the way the existing capitalist economies of the world work.
In your example, a shared resource has labor applied to meet a clear human need, and those that physically do more of it reap more rewards. In the real world, someone owns the field, does no work, pays individuals (potentially) far less than the value of their labor to do the picking, and reaps most of the rewards. Then that field gets passed down to their offspring who continue to gain the rewards without doing any work.
Why should they get to do that?
- wonder_er 9y agoBuying land and establishing a farm is not "no work". Passing physical goods to offspring goes in the same bucket as passing monetary units to offspring, goes in the same bucket as passing valuable ideas to offspring. In other words, parents should be able to pass whatever they want to their offspring. To inject the state in that process and break it... you're making (basically) a god of the state. It's all powerful, benevolent, and able to do anything in any capacity in any situation.