js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/29/84)
One of the most valid criticisms I've heard of the economic aspects of
libertarianism is that it tends to lead to wealth being concentrated in
the hands of a small minority of the population. I see this as a valid
criticism both because it does seem likely that this wealth concentration
would happen and because the w.c. would limit the opportunities of those
NOT lucky enough to be born into the wealthy sector of society.
Why not have everyone start their adulthood near the same point, wealth-
wise? How could this be done in a way that wouldn't be totally at odds
with the basic tenents of libertarianism? How about this:
Limit total gifts to offspring + inheritance to offspring to some
arbitrary figure, say 20K. The balance of all estates would go into a
fund to provide secondary education to as many as possible, choosing which
individuals receive these benefits on the basis of scholastic merit (i.e.
high school grades, SAT scores, etc.).
Anticipating criticisms of this plan:
1.) People who have accumulated wealth in their lifetime have
a right to give it to their children.
2.) High school grades and SAT scores will be lower for people
who have been poor in their childhood, and so the poor
would not really benefit from this plan.
Addressing point 1. Does anyone have the right to accept large amounts
of money which they have done nothing to earn? According to traditional
libertarian thought, being free to do what you want with the products of
your labor is an important freedom. But just how much freedom do you need
after you are dead? But I also included pre-death gifts, since this was
necessary to avoid obvious methods of getting around the inheritance limit.*dF*dE
I'm finding that part hard to justify, from a libertarian viewpoint.
Point 2. It's true CURRENTLY that measures of academic quality are lower
for poor people. But how much of that differential exists because these people
see no advantage to be gained by doing well in school, knowing that their
parents could never afford to send them to college anyway. If, however, they
knew that they could go to college (and probably not be poor afterward) if
they did well enough in high school, how much might their academic performance
improve?
Benefits of the plan:
1.) Generally higher level of education in this country. Obviously
good.
2.) No more families who have been poor for generations.
3.) No more families who have produced nothing for generations, but
have been wealthy for generations.
Anything from constructive criticism to nuclear flames welcomed.
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j