6 ms·
About your 3rd point, it's even worse: You forgot the network in time. Almost all our current productivity is made possible by knowledge, processes, culture, a
by nosianu 7y ago
About your 3rd point, it's even worse:
You forgot the network in time. Almost all our current productivity is made possible by knowledge, processes, culture, and tools created by dead people.
For the rest of us, the only reason you can "make million" (or billions) is because you are at a favorable location in the human network in space and in time, and you get to control a sizable section of that network. You didn't build that network, nor did you build the capacity of the nodes, and not the vast majority of the connections. How much a human can achieve is very much a function in that network. Even in science. Newton or Einstein, what would they have accomplished 1000 years earlier?
Most of what we produce we owe to dead people, and since that is so, we can relax about distributing those gains that the current generation mostly just inherited. Nobody needs to be worried that "something is taken away from them" that they "worked hard for" when they have to pay taxes. Put a "self-made" man in the middle of nowhere and let them keep the result of their "hard labor" tax free. They can keep their entirely self- and literally hand-made mud hut.
For the same reason those who control larger sections of the human network benefit more from government than those who do not. Because it is government of one kind or another that enables it. If there is no government those who want to be rich and powerful create one. Which is exactly what happened - it wasn't the poor, the workers and farmers who created government. It was the rich and powerful. First local lords, then kings, then Britain and their parliament, forced by the new economic upstarts, not by the peasants. And some "redistribution" down to the lower levels was only introduced to pacify the masses (people like Bismarck in Germany, who introduced a pension scheme, are under no suspicion of communism), to let the wealth increase continue undisturbed. Just like the bee keeper has to give the bees something to live on.
- dctoedt 7y agoNot entirely sure about your last paragraph, but the rest is intriguing — reminiscent of Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" remark [0]. Or: Imagine a variation on the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: The grape pickers show up at the end of the growing season and do their thing. They demand to be paid the lion's share of the entire crop yield, because it was their specialized skill and hard work that produced the harvest. They conveniently forget about the earlier workers who had patiently planted and tended the vines — without which there'd have been no harvest .... [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_...