4 ms·
If you equate hard work to manual labor and assign altruism an imaginary monetary value then of course you're going to think that janitors are the pillars holdi
by boyer 17y ago
If you equate hard work to manual labor and assign altruism an imaginary monetary value then of course you're going to think that janitors are the pillars holding our society up. The wealthy don't exist because its 'in our interest' they exist because its in their interest. What kind of evil sacrificer of men wants to drag every man of success down into the gutter of egalitarian ruin? Moochers don't retain inherited wealth for generations and its the men who've chosen to rise above manual labor and move our society that become rich.
If someone makes money, it means someone values the things they produce. Government regulation/help and fraud aside - wealth and income represent contribution to society. If you buy an Ipod its because its worth more to you than the money you spend on it. If you buy a loaf of bread its because you value the loaf of bread. The fact that the farmer and Apple provide you with the things you need doesn't give you the right to enslave them.
You don't have a right to healthcare, to healthy food, to haircuts, to welfare, or even to happiness at my expense. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to be happy.
This paper is nonsense.
- cma 17y agoThis is a fallacy. The wealth provided by something you buy isn't what you deem it worth. There can be negative externalities. For example, positional goods can mean the good seems worth it to you because it increases your status, but by doing so it just lowers someone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
- houseabsolute 17y agoI'd like to call your attention to the section of this article that argues against what you're saying. ". . . one era's luxuries are another's commonplace goods. In short, the negative positional externality is often compensated by the public goods of infant industry effects and research and development." The negative externality view of positional goods seems to be a minority opinion among economists. The examples of positional goods in the article were further quite marginal and it would be difficult to assess what part of the good is positional (and thus deserving of a tax to mitigate the externality) and what part is just valuable.
- tyn 17y agoWhat value do I provide to the society if I'm able to predict the stockmarket movements? I will end up very rich for sure (meaning I will hold a lot of assets that other people's work created) without having contributed anything in the general production of goods and services and without commiting any fraud or getting help from government.