orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/15/85)
> > >At any rate, it is evident why Nozick is concerned to demonstrate that > >market outcomes are just: Nozick's minimal state is not allowed to > >"correct" market outcomes by redistribution of wealth, even though, as Hayek > >admits, market outcomes depend to a great extent on luck. We thus see, not > >for the last time, how the defense of the minimal state is linked to the > >defense of capitalism. > > Ok, I have no problem with that statement. So what? Life is a bitch, and then > you die -- and that's the good news. You aren't going to eliminate luck in > peoples lives by any statist approach, the luck will just be who controls the > state, and who dies under it. > > Brad Miller > -- > ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives? Then what is the whole point of buying insurance? Obviously it is possible to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore reduce the role of luck. What may be random "luck" for the individual may still be predictable using probability and the law of large numbers. Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system and many other people sustain the losses? Is there really anything wrong with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is who she or he happens to be born to. Why should those born rich be able to go through their whole lives without working at all, while others struggle just to make ends meet? This is fair? This is justice? tim sevener whuxl!orb
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Sten Fagin) (01/18/85)
Who said what: >> > Tim Sevener >> Brad Miller > Tim's reply to Brad My reply to Tim >> >At any rate, it is evident why Nozick is concerned to demonstrate that >> >market outcomes are just: Nozick's minimal state is not allowed to >> >"correct" market outcomes by redistribution of wealth, even though, as Hayek >> >admits, market outcomes depend to a great extent on luck. We thus see, not >> >for the last time, how the defense of the minimal state is linked to the >> >defense of capitalism. >> >> Ok, I have no problem with that statement. So what? Life is a bitch, and then >> you die -- and that's the good news. You aren't going to eliminate luck in >> peoples lives by any statist approach, the luck will just be who controls the >> state, and who dies under it. >> >> Brad Miller >> -- > >Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives? >Then what is the whole point of buying insurance? Obviously it is possible >to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore >reduce the role of luck. Of course! In fact, insurance companies would play a major role in a libertarian society. Individuals can and do purchase insurance against the trials and tribulations of an uncertain world, and do so freely in the context of a market economy. This is an argument against government intervention, not for it. >Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system >and many other people sustain the losses? Space forbids me to do more than simply comment that there is no "system" that creates and distributes wealth. In fact, PEOPLE create and distribute wealth, so the benefits and losses about which Tim speaks are the benefits and losses of particular persons. >Is there really anything wrong >with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? Depends on how you do it, of course. You would use coercive means, no doubt, which human beings have natural rights against. As I'm sure you can guess, any voluntary means you choose will have my blessing . >Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is >who she or he happens to be born to. Quite true. Should children born into wealth should be forced to change places with those in poorer families? Or do they have certain natural rights that render them immune against such claims? >Why should those born rich be able to go through their whole lives >without working at all (...) At all? If their wealth is not managed productively, it will disappear. So let's substitute "strenuously" for "at all". Those born to wealth are entitled to it iff their parents obtained it in a just manner. Since it is entirely possible to accumulate vast amounts of wealth in a just manner (happens all the time), it is entirely possible to be born to wealth in a just manner. Suppose J. Paul Getty were to leave his son a billion dollars. Doubtless you would perceive this as an unfair and unjust distribution of wealth, and would rectify it through coercive means. But if JPG were to leave a billion dollars to a struggling laborer, this would be OK? Does the justice of a distribution depend on the presence of biological connections between the participants? I think not. > (...) while others struggle just to make ends meet? because to make sure that noone struggles to make ends meet would require the coercion of those who disagree with you. That's a cold, hard fact about the social organization of free human beings. Of course, there are lots of other ways to better the lot of the starving, including charity and working to make our society a more prosperous one. Certainly the existence of vast inequality can inspire one to more noble deeds than the coercion of one's fellow citizens. >This is fair? No. >This is justice? Yes. Barry (This is my first posting to the net; please excuse any mistakes) -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/18/85)
> tim sevener: > Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system > and many other people sustain the losses? Is there really anything wrong > with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? > If someone is lucky to be alive, are you justified in killing him? --JoSH
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/20/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:24 am Jan 17, 1985 >> Ok, I have no problem with that statement. So what? Life is a bitch, and then >> you die -- and that's the good news. You aren't going to eliminate luck in >> peoples lives by any statist approach, the luck will just be who controls the >> state, and who dies under it. > >Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives? An interesting question. Naturally it has very little to do with the note you're responding to -- to reply AS IF the person above had said "You can't reduce the impact chance has on people's lives" is to misstate his position. >Then what is the whole point of buying insurance? Obviously it is possible >to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore >reduce the role of luck. Indeed -- you'll notice a crucial difference between an insurance company and a government here (although you're trying to use them for the same purpose). The insurance company must make sense. It must answer to stockholders. It must make money without extracting by force it from those who choose not to deal with it. If it makes rules not consistent with reality, it dies, and the people who chose to deal with it may suffer. If a government does the same thing, it will steal the resources it needs to support an impossible dream, and everybody within its reach will suffer. >What may be random "luck" for the individual >may still be predictable using probability and the law of large numbers. >Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system >and many other people sustain the losses? A very hypothetical question. I don't know of any economic system where "a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system". If you can find one (other than the trivial case of a society consisting of only a few people) I'm willing to examine the society. I suspect you mean "why should a few people benefit vastly more than others", and I suspect you know the answer to that question: it is that in providing incentive to produce, our society allows choice to its members as to how to use the rewards they get. The impulse is strong to look out for your children (and thus people inherit huge sums without being productive themselves) and to look out for yourself (and thus people assemble more wealth than they need). In a society where no person is forced (except by contractual terms) to deal with others, this is not a problem (wealth tends to redistribute itself (take a look at early America)). In societies where wealth is controlled by means unrelated to productivity or how much material good you do others, wealth tends to be distributed according to whatever rationale dominates the system. The problem is that all such systems come to terms with the common ideas of looking out for yourself and your children. Under any system, some people will be better adapted to the rules than others. Making the rule be that the people must deal with each other on an equal basis (rights-wise) and that they can only get wealth by giving value, ("trade") has the nice pair of properties that it promotes extreme economic efficiency and doesn't require little nasties like government restriction of emigration or immigration, forced slave labor, government control of economic choices (including "which books shall be printed?") and inquiry into private affairs. >Is there really anything wrong >with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? Let's not be too euphemistic here. Whoever controls the "balancing" apparatus will control the wealth of the society you propose. If you have any central control of this apparatus, you've created a system wherein whoever can control the balancing will look after himself and his children. As David Friedman put it (sorry, I'm quoting from memory here) "A society that depends upon putting Saints in control is perilous -- there are not enough Saints." >Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is >who she or he happens to be born to. Why should those born rich be >able to go through their whole lives without working at all, while others >struggle just to make ends meet? On the other hand, why shouldn't people who earn their wealth be able to give it to whom they please? And what could be more moral (as a parent) than giving it to your children? Part of the apparatus that makes the poor in this country pretty well off compared to the poor in other countries is that there are lots of opportunities. Should not the provider of opportunities be rewarded? Should he not have the right to do what he chooses with the reward (force and fraud aside)? >This is fair? This is justice? Prosecutor: "Members of the jury, is this the face of a fair society?" Jury: "I thought we were supposed to judge the evidence, not the faces." Yes, it is fair, and it is just, and it is even inspiring -- provided you don't let the powerful concretize their position by giving them political power. The most often-used way of doing this is to create some mechanism to regulate wealth, which in turn comes under the control of the then-wealthy, which in turn is used to preserve the fortunes of the then-wealthy against the natural economic forces that make preserving capital difficult for the unproductive. "Socialism" is one good example of this, particularly in the USSR.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/85)
> > tim sevener (me) > Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley > >Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives? > >Then what is the whole point of buying insurance? Obviously it is possible > >to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore > >reduce the role of luck. > > Of course! In fact, insurance companies would play a major role in > a libertarian society. Individuals can and do purchase insurance > against the trials and tribulations of an uncertain world, and do so > freely in the context of a market economy. This is an argument against > government intervention, not for it. GREAT! Then I presume those in Harlem will certainly buy insurance against poverty! Or could it be possible that after 33% of the American people were unemployed due to the workings of the wonderful "free enterprise system" that they might decide that they should *ALL* shoulder the burden to provide unemployment insurance, education, and other such collective insurance against personal catastrophe? Was there something wrong with this national decision? I don't think so. > > >Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is > >who she or he happens to be born to. > > Quite true. Should children born into wealth should be forced to > change places with those in poorer families? Or do they have certain > natural rights that render them immune against such claims? > > >Why should those born rich be able to go through their whole lives > >without working at all (...) > > At all? If their wealth is not managed productively, it will disappear. So you take a million dollars out of your billion and pay your accountants, lawyers and stockbrokers to see that the river of money doesn't dry up. If you own enough money then the law of compound interest makes it very easy to keep such wealth without doing a thing. > > Suppose J. Paul Getty were to leave his son a billion dollars. Doubtless > you would perceive this as an unfair and unjust distribution of wealth, > and would rectify it through coercive means. But if JPG were to leave > a billion dollars to a struggling laborer, this would be OK? No, it certainly would not be OK. If JPG distributed his billion dollars to 100 million laborers or those who actually do the work that sustains the billion dollars then this would seem more fair than perpetuating and even increasing an unequal distribution of wealth. Giving the one billion dollars to somebody other than his son does not resolve the fundamental problem--perpetuation of an unequal distribution of wealth and passing on such wealth without any effort on the inheritors part, other than crawling out of the womb. I am not prescribing any specific action to solve this problem. But I think that the inequitable distribution of wealth IS a problem which Libertarians seem totally unwilling to address. In the real world as opposed to the mythical "Libertaria" 33% of the country was unemployed during the Great Depression. To solve this problem people supported their government in providing assistance to these people, who were unemployed through absolutely no fault of their own, but simply due to the workings of the economic system. I think that this was (and still is) a reasonable thing to do. In the real world as opposed to the mythical "Libertaria" there are people who inherit a fortune and do nothing whatsoever to contribute to other's welfare other than to contribute to the welfare of lawyers, accountants and others who insure that the money keeps rolling in. This is not to say that most of the wealthy are lazy: actually many are very hard-working. But it points up the injustice of a system which allows some people to make money off of other people's labor: how to deal with such injustice is a very complicated problem. But it IS an injustice and it IS a problem. Libertarians seem unwilling to admit this. How would Libertarians deal with the Great Depression? Pretend it didn't exist? Ah, yes, that's the answer, of course it didn't exist because such economic downturns just cannot happen in Libertaria! We have defined them out of existence, ipso facto, TAA DAA! they no lonher exists! Amazing what a consistent philosophy does for you! Why, if you believe that, I'll tell you about a REAL existing society which has no classes, no crime, indeed no social problems of any kind. Just ask the leaders of the USSR about how their consistent system has solved all social problems and ills...... where is the connection with reality???? tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/23/85)
> > tim sevener: > > Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system > > and many other people sustain the losses? Is there really anything wrong > > with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? > > > > If someone is lucky to be alive, are you justified in killing him? > > --JoSH Who is suggesting killing anybody? On the other hand there IS a valid ethical concern here: the average lifespan for the affluent is much greater than that for the poor and people in the Third World. Right now, as we know thousands are starving in Ethiopia. But this was merely the event the media has temporarily decided to focus on. In fact many people are starving all over the world, and have been for some time. The solutions to this problem are not necessarily just to send massive amounts of food. The long-term solution involves promotion of a more efficient agricultural system in these countries through land reform, government price supports, provision of extension services to provide technical aid to peasants who often use inefficient methods. Will it kill the affluent to provide some money to assist in helping their fellow humans in the rest of the world? Of course, Libertarians will now suggest that it is just a question of getting people to *voluntarily* contribute to help the starving in the rest of the world. I would agree this would be better than promoting such efforts through taxation. But this is largely the system we have right now. The government is not stopping anybody from contributing to relief organizations or very good organizations like Oxfam America (which funnels its aid to help *production* and not just the provision of food itself). Is this working? What Libertarians are mounting a campaign to contribute to those starving in the rest of the world? If the advocates of totally voluntary action are unwilling to volunteer their own time, money and energy to help the starving, then who is? tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/24/85)
>from nrh: > I suspect you mean "why should a few people benefit vastly more than > others", and I suspect you know the answer to that question: it is that > in providing incentive to produce, our society allows choice to its > members as to how to use the rewards they get. The impulse is strong to > look out for your children (and thus people inherit huge sums without > being productive themselves) and to look out for yourself (and thus > people assemble more wealth than they need). The true question is not how to use the rewards people get, it is how they get such rewards in the first place? Is it fair for the onwer of a factory to get money for nothing more than owning the factory? What good would the factory be if there were nobody to work in it? (note: this is about to become a moot question when factories become so automated nobody *will* have to work in them. How people will then have money to buy the factories production is a problem we are about to confront......) > In a society where no > person is forced (except by contractual terms) to deal with others, this > is not a problem (wealth tends to redistribute itself (take a look at > early America)). In societies where wealth is controlled by means > unrelated to productivity or how much material good you do others, > wealth tends to be distributed according to whatever rationale dominates > the system. "wealth tended to redistribute itself in early America": this is an interesting proposition, however a study I have read on this subject showed that the concentration of wealth tended to increase in several cities (Boston, Philadelphia) according to the evidence examined. It is true that America did present a path to property unavailable in Europe: namely, homesteading the frontier, an option provided largely due to the foresight of Thomas Jefferson. One should also note that this brilliant founding father (so often cited by Conservatives!)also supported and campaigned for the provision that every parcel of land homesteaded would have some land set aside for public education. Public education: arrghhh! Such a ghastly sore in the free enterprise system! more comments on this article to come...... tim sevener whuxl!orb "loving every minute of it!!"
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/25/85)
> No, it certainly would not be OK. If JPG distributed his billion dollars > to 100 million laborers or those who actually do the work that sustains > the billion dollars then this would seem more fair than perpetuating > and even increasing an unequal distribution of wealth. Giving the one billion > dollars to somebody other than his son does not resolve the fundamental > problem--perpetuation of an unequal distribution of wealth and passing > on such wealth without any effort on the inheritors part, other than > crawling out of the womb. > Let's see just how unfair the current system is. I'll use the Boeing Company for 1983 as my example, because I have our annual report handy. Total income was $11.308 billion. 98.4% of this was due to sales, the other 1.6% was mostly interest on time deposits and the like. Most of this, $8.128 billion, goes to expenses: buying raw materials and parts from subcontractors, utility bills, purchase of machine tools, local and federal taxes, debt service, etc. The remaining $3.18 billion is available to pay employees salaries and profits to the shareholders. The employees received $2.825 billion, or 88.8% of this. The shareholders received $136 million, or 4.3%. The balance was reinvested in the company, to provide future growth. Even assuming all the retained earnings eventually go to the shareholders, they receive only 12.2%, or $355 million. Why should the owners receive anything? Well, they own a bunch of buildings, tools, and land, worth $3.048 billion, with which you can build useful products, like commercial airplanes. Why should the workers receive anything? They have specialized skills and experience that can produce those products. It takes a cooperative effort of those who have the hardware and those who know how to use it to build the products. Why is it reasonable for the shareholders to get 12.2% of the 'profits'? It is they who take the risk of losses. The employees are guaranteed a known wage. It is true that employees may be laid off, but so long as they work they will get a definite amount for their time. On the other hand, the shareholders have no guarantee of profits. It is possible for them to lose their entire investment. They could also make lots of money. It is for the risk taking that they are worthy of their gains. Now, a regulated monopoly, like public utilities in most states, has no risk. The state typically sets a guaranteed rate of return, typically fairly high. This, to me, is wrong. If there is no risk, the rate of return should be very low, maybe 3%. Otherwise the shareholders in the monopoly ARE getting a free ride of the type several USENET readers complain about. So, the libertarian answer is to de-regulate the monopolies, and allow competition and the market to operate. Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder