garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/15/85)
Laura Creighton says: > I assume that *everybody* deserves what they get until I can see > some evidence of coercion -- fraud included. That doesn't seem like a good assumption. I was born into a good home in an affluent country -- how did I deserve that more than those who were not so fortunate? And if everyone deserves the same start that I got, then those who didn't get it have been defrauded in some way, so that forced redistribution of wealth would be a proper thing to do. And if I didn't deserve it, then by what right can I withhold the benefits thereof from others? Gary Samuelson
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/18/85)
In article <754@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >Laura Creighton says: >> I assume that *everybody* deserves what they get until I can see >> some evidence of coercion -- fraud included. >That doesn't seem like a good assumption. I was born into a good >home in an affluent country -- how did I deserve that more than >those who were not so fortunate? And if everyone deserves the >same start that I got, then those who didn't get it have been >defrauded in some way, so that forced redistribution of wealth >would be a proper thing to do. And if I didn't deserve it, then >by what right can I withhold the benefits thereof from others? Depends on your religious beliefs. Some will claim that you had a load of good karma left over from your last life. Others will claim that it was God's will (which is by definition just). Still others will claim that putting you there then was the thing the Gods thought would be most humorous. (1/2 :-) The problem here, like so many other cases ignored by liberals, is that there isn't any reasonable way to flatten out the differences. As an experiment, let's pick a thousand random children, born at roughly the same time, into nearly identical circumstances. Right off the bat, the kids are different. They have different sexes, hair color, eye color, coordination, intelligence, etc. Any or all of these things could affect how well they will do in the future. They also have different parents, who will treat them differently. Some will be spoiled, some may be abandoned. Some will be encouraged to read, and otherwise taught to seek an education. Others will be allowed to do as they want, and learn to see self-gratification. All of this will probably affect how they do in the future. And there isn't a lot you can do about it. The physical differences are (currently) unfixable. The environmental differences can be fixed, by taking the kids away from their parents and raising them in groups. This would also fix the disparity in economic circumstances. At the same time, you can insure that the kids don't grow up to be libertarians - or anything else foolish enough to question the state. Thanks, but no thanks. In other words, you won the luck of the draw (or the will of the Gods, or the turn of the wheel). Forced redistribution of wealth is a partial correction, but leaves the other - far more important - things broken. I don't think the partial fix is worth giving others that much control of our lives. <mike [Just to prevent some useless flaming, I *do not* think children deserve the rewards garnered by the labor of their parents after their parents are dead.]
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (03/18/85)
> ... I was born into a good > home in an affluent country -- how did I deserve that more than > those who were not so fortunate? ... > Gary Samuelson According to Hindu and Buddhist theology, your birth is actually a rebirth (reincarnation). Therefore the status of the being that is you is based upon your actions in past lives. larry fast (University of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile PS I know this should be in religions but I couldn't resist.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/18/85)
My definition of ``deserve'' is not founded on equality. It makes sense to look at poor people and ask ``did they deserve this?''. Generally, the answer is ``No.''. However, when you want to find out what injustice has occurred, it is better to find certain people who have made terrible choices than to say that in some magic way it is all ``the rich'''s fault. Since I am a firm non-beliver in ``the White Man's burden'' that I am wealthier than the third world inhabitants does not automatically make me think that in some way I do not deserve what I have. If you go back to a pre-industrial society, everybody in the world can be seen as being relatively equally wealthy (except for feudal barons, kings and the like). Everybody has a >75% infant mortality rate and starvation is common everywhere. Now we are all equal -- this seems to be the natural state of mankind. If you say ``nobody deserves to live that way'' then you have a complaint against God, perhaps, but hardly the current rich. It is also interesting that if you decided to kill 1/3rd of the population of the globe, killing the poorest (no, people, I do not advocate this, never have, and never will) you will see that we still have more people than existed in the middle ages, and the standard of living is much higher. This implies that people fill nitches where they can starve and live in misery and poverty whenever they can. Poverty may be an unending struggle unless you can sterilize, or otherwise convince the poor to stop breeding more poor people while you are trying to help them to raise their standard of living. They may breed faster than you can industrialise. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (03/21/85)
The word 'deserve' inevitably brings the arguement to Death Duties: Does an unproductive ne'er-do-well deserve the benefits of his father's hard work? Does an Etheopian child deserve a life measured in days rather than years? The problem is that no-one deserves to inherit anything, as they haven't lived long enough at birth to have shown great worth. The word 'deserve' is as vague as 'justice', and no two people will have an identical opinion as to who deserves what. What is the Libertarian view on death duties? Surely in a system based on competition, it is unfair if one man starts out better equipped to compete than another? Death duties encourage a rich (wo)man to spend while (s)he is still alive. (And what about gift tax... we don't want Mr E Scrooge giving all his worldly to his son 20mins before he is due to snuff it - or death duties would be 'unexpected death' duties). I can see no solution to the death duties problem, so I am interested to hear a Libertarian point of view, which would doubtless be based on a system of logic entirely alien to my own. I am always caused to think from a different slant by the arguements of the libertarians. Some day I will grace you all with my conclusions. -Nigel Gale
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/27/85)
In article <4993@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nigel Gale) writes: >Does an unproductive ne'er-do-well deserve the benefits of his >father's hard work? No. >Does an Etheopian child deserve a life measured in days rather than >years? Why should an Etheopian child be notably different from the norm for humanity? >The problem is that no-one deserves to inherit anything, as they >haven't lived long enough at birth to have shown great worth. And here we have a basic mistake that everybody is making in the question of inheritance. More often than not, by the time anyone gets an inheritance, they are *well* past birth, and half way to retirement themselves. Inheritance usually has little, if anything, to do with how well a person is going to do in life. >Surely in a system based on competition, it is unfair if one man >starts out better equipped to compete than another? As previously pointed out, inheritance has little or nothing to do with this. More important will be the environment provided by your parents, in the form of books, encouragement and schooling. Most important will be the set of attitudes your parents give you: are you responsible, hardworking, thrifty, trustworthy, brave, loyal etc. Of course, even if you flatten out these differences by bundling up everybodies kids at birth and sending them to a creche to be raised (at which point, I'm leaving - even if it involves dying trying to get around the emigration restrictions.) you still haven't made everybody equally well equipped to compete. I would do much better moving furniture than my boss. She'd make a much better jockey than I would. It behooves us to avoid fields we aren't well equipped to compete in. <mike
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/06/85)
> In article <754@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > The problem here, like so many other cases ignored by liberals, is that > there isn't any reasonable way to flatten out the differences. As an > experiment, let's pick a thousand random children, born at roughly the same > time, into nearly identical circumstances. > > Right off the bat, the kids are different. They have different sexes, hair > color, eye color, coordination, intelligence, etc. Any or all of these > things could affect how well they will do in the future. They also have > different parents, who will treat them differently. Some will be spoiled, > some may be abandoned. Some will be encouraged to read, and otherwise > taught to seek an education. Others will be allowed to do as they want, and > learn to see self-gratification. All of this will probably affect how they > do in the future..... Don't forget that the decisions that the kids make will have an enourmous impact upon how well they do. Environment isn't the only factor. Some will learn to be lazy, others will learn how to deal with the world intelligently. Random chance will operate as well. It has been said that lifes are changed because someone misses the bus (or something like that). No matter how much you try to even out the differences, SOMEONE will screw it up or find a way to compromise the system. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"