3 ms·
> It's pretty obvious to me that a deliberate and intentional effort has been made to ensure that only people who own a lot of property have any voice in the sy
by _louisr_ 8y ago
> It's pretty obvious to me that a deliberate and intentional effort has been made to ensure that only people who own a lot of property have any voice in the system; to flip that relationship around and make it a moral statement is frankly a little scary.
Well, it hasn't been a deliberate and intentional effort to exclude those without property or net worth from the decision making process - People like that, who reside at the bottom of the hierarchies they inhabit, have never in history been looked to for guidance or input on any decision. I'm making an evolutionary biology claim: Folks with no clout can only have a say if it is deliberately & intentionally given to them. It's the opposite of your speculation that it's been taken from them.
And frankly why _should_ someone who cannot gather value for themselves have a say in economic decisions that will affect others? The reason we have these big evil hierarchies, where the poor are dispossessed and a small group of tycoons at the top make the decisions, is because they have a track record of good decisions. If you suddenly took some progressive initiative to invite some idlers to give input on tax law, they might make a decision that inadvertently lowers your country's GDP by half a percent for five years.
- fallingfrog 8y agoFirst off, a lot of people are born at the bottom, and born at the top, of various hierarchies. I'm certain that the people at the top think they earned it. They didn't. Second, maintaining these kinds of hierarchies does not happen as the result of some kind of natural process. It requires violence.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoI'm working quite hard to ensure that my children will have a far greater head start than I did. Why should I not be able to pass on the fruit of my labor? Yes I know this is going to be a controversial question. I'm genuinely interested in what people's opinions are.
- wsy 8y agoIt is good if the society evens this out: it should not completely take away the fruits of your labor, because then your incentive to be productive will be low. But it also should ensure that less lucky children get a good start as well, to ensure that as many children as possible become productive citizens. To do the latter, the wealthy have to give up some of their wealth.
- nybble41 8y ago"To do the latter, the wealthy have to give up some of their wealth." No, this does not follow. It is perfectly possible to ensure that every child has a reasonably good start and every chance to become a productive citizen without stealing from anyone, if only the people who are specifically interested in "evening things out" give up some of their wealth for the purpose. As a bonus, the children then get to grow up in a society where theft and parasitism are not deemed normal and acceptable forms of behavior.
- wsy 8y agoThat does not seem to make much sense. Do you also think street building and maintenance, police, army, etc. should only be supported by people "specifically interested" in these services?
- nybble41 8y agoYes, of course. If you want a service, you pay for it yourself. You have no right to make anyone else pay for what you want against their will.
- wsy 8y agoGame-theoretic results prove that this cannot possibly work (tragedy of the commons). Your second sentence is no argument, just a claim. I counter-claim that I do have that right. So it seems to be a stalemate with respect to claims.
- redial 8y ago> The reason we have these big evil hierarchies, where the poor are dispossessed and a small group of tycoons at the top make the decisions, is because they have a track record of good decisions. Good decisions FOR THEM.