3 ms·

I think it's prima facie clear that inequality itself isn't a prime driver of "innovation," whatever that means. Was Haiti circa 1780 (one of the most unequal s

by whakim 5y ago

I think it's prima facie clear that inequality itself isn't a prime driver of "innovation," whatever that means. Was Haiti circa 1780 (one of the most unequal societies to have ever existed) particularly innovative? Is the United States of 2021 more innovative than the United States of 1970? Is Saudi Arabia more innovative than Germany? Perhaps it's true that SpaceX couldn't exist somewhere else, but I'm not sure it has much to do with inequality.

WalterBright 5y ago
The driver is economic freedom, which produces both inequality and prosperity. Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom. Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.
- whakim 5y ago
  I'm not really sure what "economic freedom" means - and I'd be able to respond better if you defined it. Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely. > Haiti wasn't a tyranny Owning other people is tyrannical.
    - whakim 5y ago
      > Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.

by whakim 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

The driver is economic freedom, which produces both inequality and prosperity. Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom. Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.

whakim 5y ago
I'm not really sure what "economic freedom" means - and I'd be able to respond better if you defined it. Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely. > Haiti wasn't a tyranny Owning other people is tyrannical.
  - whakim 5y ago
    > Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.