5 ms·

There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't ini

by kbolino 13y ago

There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.

mpyne 13y ago
Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.
- kbolino 13y ago
  You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways. Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own? Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation? So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology) is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force necessarily leaves only meritorious actions. Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person responsible or not.
    - kbolino 13y ago
      In order to ameliorate iniquity, you have to steal. Now you are in the position of saying who gets to do the stealing, who gets to be stolen from, and who gets to receive what was stolen. Voila, you've created a new power hierarchy which is supported by theft and force to those who resist the theft. The thieves become the elites, the stolen-from become the downtrodden, and the given-to become the politically favored. The underlying system hasn't changed, just how the players are arranged. Addressing your more concrete examples: 1. The wealthy inheritor. While true that the sudden influx of wealth may confer an undue bump in social prestige, it won't last unless the individual knows how to keep it. Wealth is useless sitting in a hoard, it has to be expended; unwise expenditures will lead to negative returns. In other words, you don't stay rich for long unless you know what it takes to stay rich, which is in itself a form of merit. Even if that sounds distasteful to you, bear in mind that the alternative at which you hint simply involves stealing from this person and giving to those you favor, who are then placed in the same position: wealth, if you can keep it. If they're savvy enough to do that, then they will soon become either your next target or a new elite. 2. The monopolizing cartel. In order to monopolize a market in an environment where force and theft are forbidden, a company must offer a product that is most appealing to customers. That is a form of merit. Now, in order to maintain that position, the company must continue to offer the most appealing product. You might say: they could drive out competition by drastically undercutting their prices. Well, where is the harm in that? The competition either adapts if it can, or dies out; meanwhile, people pay lower prices. Then the cycle of raising prices, thus creating an incentive for competition, thus driving down prices, repeats until the cartel runs out of resources to play this game. 3. Negative externalities. If I pollute your arable land, then I have stolen it from you and replaced it with barren land. It is theft, albeit indirectly, and so falls under the category of forbidden things. The matter of appropriate remediation for crimes has not yet been addressed, so I'm not going to bring it up now.

by kbolino 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.

kbolino 13y ago
You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways. Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own? Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation? So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology) is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force necessarily leaves only meritorious actions. Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person responsible or not.
  - kbolino 13y ago
    In order to ameliorate iniquity, you have to steal. Now you are in the position of saying who gets to do the stealing, who gets to be stolen from, and who gets to receive what was stolen. Voila, you've created a new power hierarchy which is supported by theft and force to those who resist the theft. The thieves become the elites, the stolen-from become the downtrodden, and the given-to become the politically favored. The underlying system hasn't changed, just how the players are arranged. Addressing your more concrete examples: 1. The wealthy inheritor. While true that the sudden influx of wealth may confer an undue bump in social prestige, it won't last unless the individual knows how to keep it. Wealth is useless sitting in a hoard, it has to be expended; unwise expenditures will lead to negative returns. In other words, you don't stay rich for long unless you know what it takes to stay rich, which is in itself a form of merit. Even if that sounds distasteful to you, bear in mind that the alternative at which you hint simply involves stealing from this person and giving to those you favor, who are then placed in the same position: wealth, if you can keep it. If they're savvy enough to do that, then they will soon become either your next target or a new elite. 2. The monopolizing cartel. In order to monopolize a market in an environment where force and theft are forbidden, a company must offer a product that is most appealing to customers. That is a form of merit. Now, in order to maintain that position, the company must continue to offer the most appealing product. You might say: they could drive out competition by drastically undercutting their prices. Well, where is the harm in that? The competition either adapts if it can, or dies out; meanwhile, people pay lower prices. Then the cycle of raising prices, thus creating an incentive for competition, thus driving down prices, repeats until the cartel runs out of resources to play this game. 3. Negative externalities. If I pollute your arable land, then I have stolen it from you and replaced it with barren land. It is theft, albeit indirectly, and so falls under the category of forbidden things. The matter of appropriate remediation for crimes has not yet been addressed, so I'm not going to bring it up now.