3 ms·
Shouldn't you find the current state of things to be equally frustrating then? It's just another example of the same thing. We never got to choose how our econ
by kiliantics 7y ago
Shouldn't you find the current state of things to be equally frustrating then? It's just another example of the same thing.
We never got to choose how our economic/productive output is valued or disposed of, we just were born into this highly unequal and unfair system and had to play along or die. I'd find that a lot more frustrating than the proposal that, if the technological and resource capacity exists to provide enough for all, it should be shared relatively evenly.
- conanbatt 7y ago> We never got to choose how our economic/productive output is valued or disposed of, Bastiat said it long ago: men have the tendency to overvalue their own work and diminish the work of others. There is no better system known to man to solve that issue than the free exchange and refusal of services between them. When someone says that a farmer that can produce food for a thousand people thanks to productivity gains should mean that people eat for free, does he mean the farmer should not get paid, or does he mean that there should be no farmer? Clearly the idea that because productivity is up there is free labor is a fallacy.
- kiliantics 7y agoWhile I wouldn't disagree with anything you have put forward here, I would assert that "free exchange" cannot really happen if there is massive wealth inequality. Private property will necessarily lead to labour exploitation that involves unequal circumstances and thus unequal terms of exchange.