6 ms·

In any society, there will be the haves and the have-nots. The transition of wealth between those two groups will always happen, whether by roving gangs of mara

In any society, there will be the haves and the have-nots. The transition of wealth between those two groups will always happen, whether by roving gangs of marauders (like in Somalia), or by the government. I personally prefer that the wealth transition occur through government due to the ancillary benefits of things like roads and police, but that is just me.

rayiner 13y ago
This is true, but you gloss over one point. Any society will have its haves and have nots, but those will not be the same group of people across societies. In the U.S., the "haves" are pencil neck geeks. In Somalia, they're strongmen. Government creates this cocoon that allows the geeks to thrive. When there is government, and the concomitant law and order, having a good eye for investments is a trait that can make someone a "have." When there is no government, what makes someone a "have" is the ability to lead men in the exercise of violence. At the same time, the "have nots" are not the same group of people either. I think many people rotting away in the ghetto, getting involved in gangs, would in a different sort of society be leaders of men, people of rank. Taxes are what the geeks pay for the government to suppress the people who would otherwise be the "haves."
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  That is correct, but strongmen in your example exist exclusively to extract money (the ultimate common denominator in almost all societies) from weaker people/tribes. That is my position. Without government, you are obligated to pay your own private security force, driving on your own private roads, paying for your own private healthcare. My position is that you would probably pay a similar percentage of your income to provide these services for yourself than if most everybody contributed to a pot of money to provide these services for the greater good.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I understand, but my point is that without government, you wouldn't have any money to pay for your own private security force. You'd be a peasant, serving some strongman. It's not like Mark Zuckerberg would just hire a private security force and drive on private roads. He wouldn't be wealthy to begin with, because he would have nothing valuable to offer in a such a society.

rayiner 13y ago

This is true, but you gloss over one point. Any society will have its haves and have nots, but those will not be the same group of people across societies. In the U.S., the "haves" are pencil neck geeks. In Somalia, they're strongmen. Government creates this cocoon that allows the geeks to thrive. When there is government, and the concomitant law and order, having a good eye for investments is a trait that can make someone a "have." When there is no government, what makes someone a "have" is the ability to lead men in the exercise of violence. At the same time, the "have nots" are not the same group of people either. I think many people rotting away in the ghetto, getting involved in gangs, would in a different sort of society be leaders of men, people of rank. Taxes are what the geeks pay for the government to suppress the people who would otherwise be the "haves."

swalkergibson 13y ago
That is correct, but strongmen in your example exist exclusively to extract money (the ultimate common denominator in almost all societies) from weaker people/tribes. That is my position. Without government, you are obligated to pay your own private security force, driving on your own private roads, paying for your own private healthcare. My position is that you would probably pay a similar percentage of your income to provide these services for yourself than if most everybody contributed to a pot of money to provide these services for the greater good.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I understand, but my point is that without government, you wouldn't have any money to pay for your own private security force. You'd be a peasant, serving some strongman. It's not like Mark Zuckerberg would just hire a private security force and drive on private roads. He wouldn't be wealthy to begin with, because he would have nothing valuable to offer in a such a society.