3 ms·
It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to take it myself". The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who ge
by Radim 8y ago
It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to take it myself".
The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who gets to decide who's weak and who's the villain?
Certainly each individual knows for themselves; typically a variation on "I'm weak; give me". But coming up with stable, fair valuations for social contribution is a hard problem. For example, we already know that centralized, committee-driven solutions are deadly in the long run.
- justtopost 8y agoAnd you just explained why, while it sounds great to me otherwise, I can never get behind socialism. The evils of capitolism are essentially still present, but now controlled by committee. I once dreampt the answer was a new meta-currency, where there is subjective emotional value traded against a objective value currency. The interactions you had during the day gave value to others life and you shared in that, and you gave back to those that brightened yours. My dream imagined people being their best, for both selfish and social reasons. But upon waking and reflection, I found a Black Mirror-esque dance of everyone emotionally blackmailing each other, and facade-laden interaction approaching desperation. I don't know the answer, but careful application seems key. The world is made of edge cases.
- pixl97 8y agoThe guy with your head in the guillotine. Mass income inequality will eventually produce violent solutions. A society where the bottom portion has enough that they are not willing to risk it all is a stable solution.
- lwhi 8y agoNo it isn't. Limits placed on capitalism, through regulation, might be an example of letting society (the system) sort itself out. If limits aren't introduced, the gap between rich and poor becomes too vast. It become futile for those who have little to even try to adjust their situation. I do believe in capitalism, but left to its own devices, it becomes obscene.
- amelius 8y agoAnd a nice example of regulation: net neutrality.
- lwhi 8y agoYes. Regulation should ensure a fair and level playing field for all. It's not anti-capitalist, it just stops the big guys from ruining things for everyone else.
- Radim 8y agoLeft to its own devices and somewhat bizarrely, capitalism evolves strategies that include "social stability". Long-term prosperity becomes a part of the equation, with despotic wealth gaps an obstacle to that. Nobody likes their head inside a guillotine! Or a world where their children couldn't live. In other words, no central committees are needed when the actors align voluntarily. "Bread and games", it was called in Rome. It would take some fairly corrupt governments and very stupid businessmen to forget these lessons.
- amelius 8y agoBtw, a good way to show a capitalism-supporter the downsides of capitalism is to let them enter a game of Monopoly a few rounds after it has started.