3 ms·

Even if the wealth came from a weekly poker game where purely chance determined who was wealthy, and it was zero sum. Wouldn't it still be reprehensible to expe

Even if the wealth came from a weekly poker game where purely chance determined who was wealthy, and it was zero sum. Wouldn't it still be reprehensible to expect the winner to pay the tab just because he won?

yequalsx 16y ago
Just about everyone who makes a great deal of money does so because of the type of society we live in. Does so because of the type of workforce we have. Is protected by the police and our military. The analogy you've given is a bad one because of these facts. Living in a society is not analogous to a poker game.
- johngalt 16y ago
  You put the cart before the horse. Society doesn't create wealth, wealth creates society. Consider the ghost towns of the southwest. Strike gold and an entire town springs up overnight with theatres, shops, bars, schools, etc... When the mine runs out it all dissappears as quickly as it came; regardless of how large the workforce of the miners, or effective the law enforcement. I do agree that it's not analogus, because it's not zero-sum, and it's not decided by chance to the same degree. If anything making the scenario more unfair.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Whenever humans congregate in sufficient numbers a society is formed. This has been going on for at least the last 10,000 years. This has nothing to do with wealth as far as I know. At least, not in the sense that the term is colloquially used.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    You're talking about society at the micro-level though, not the national level. Some of them were immigrants from outside but a large proportion were moving from other communities in the nation and their ability to do that while retaining their previous prosperity was insured by the society they were investing in through their tax code. I actually think insurance can be quite a good model of the tax system. I'm insuring my assets against a total societal breakdown and confistcation, a la the Bolshevik revolution. I pay more than some because I have a higher asset base to lose but less than others who have more than I.

yequalsx 16y ago

Just about everyone who makes a great deal of money does so because of the type of society we live in. Does so because of the type of workforce we have. Is protected by the police and our military. The analogy you've given is a bad one because of these facts. Living in a society is not analogous to a poker game.

johngalt 16y ago
You put the cart before the horse. Society doesn't create wealth, wealth creates society. Consider the ghost towns of the southwest. Strike gold and an entire town springs up overnight with theatres, shops, bars, schools, etc... When the mine runs out it all dissappears as quickly as it came; regardless of how large the workforce of the miners, or effective the law enforcement. I do agree that it's not analogus, because it's not zero-sum, and it's not decided by chance to the same degree. If anything making the scenario more unfair.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Whenever humans congregate in sufficient numbers a society is formed. This has been going on for at least the last 10,000 years. This has nothing to do with wealth as far as I know. At least, not in the sense that the term is colloquially used.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  You're talking about society at the micro-level though, not the national level. Some of them were immigrants from outside but a large proportion were moving from other communities in the nation and their ability to do that while retaining their previous prosperity was insured by the society they were investing in through their tax code. I actually think insurance can be quite a good model of the tax system. I'm insuring my assets against a total societal breakdown and confistcation, a la the Bolshevik revolution. I pay more than some because I have a higher asset base to lose but less than others who have more than I.