If you can improve your lot simply by owning money, you will eventually end up owning all money in the world, thereby impoverishing others.
How would one do so…?
The only way to come to own money is by producing things that people value, and exchanging those things for money. Unless you are a politician in which case you can simply steal what you want without giving any value in return.
For instance, lending money with interest.
I reiterate… how would one do so?
They give something in return.
If I need a surgery, but cannot afford it, that’s not the case.
Starting with say 1 million. Lending out half of it at 20% interest → 1.1 million. One more step and you will have 1.21 million. 20 steps and you have 6.7 million. Etc etc.
Still wouldn’t get you anywhere near to owning all the wealth in the world, even if you believe the compound interest paradox…
You don’t believe it?
If you need anything, and can’t trade for it, you are out of luck. So what will you do? Will you use violence to get what you want when you cannot trade for it? If you will use violence for surgery, will you use it for food and shelter as well?
Using violence to take from others is barbarism. I oppose barbarism.
You would rather see poor people die than having a welfare state that steals a small amount of your income to take care of those very few people who are not able to take care of themselves?
Capitalism is a profit and lose system, not a profit system.
You enjoy dwelling upon strawmen?
It was an honest question. I’m new into libertarian ideas, so it will probably take some effort getting used to them.
I would also call it an appeal to emotion. Fallacies are fun fun fun!
hypothetical.
lets imagine there are two weird worlds. and i will ask you which one you would prefer to live in
in weird world 1) people have no ‘rights’ to food, water, clothing, shelter,healthcare, income anything, … yet somehow very few suffer deprivation.
in wierd world 2) people have rights to food water clothing shelter healthcare income etc.yet somehow… very many suffer deprivation, many people die for poverty related reasons.
what sounds better to you?
more can be said about these two worlds later…
Market exchanges take place when both parties agree to the terms facing them. If one party has nothing to offer to the other, there is no reason to carry the transaction through barring eleemosynary sentiments… which themselves are a form of “exchange” in a sense. Markets will most rationally allocate resources according to effective demand (i.e. demand backed by sufficient purchasing power, i.e. productive activity), not just “wishes” or “needs”. I.e. they stimulate production for the purpose of consumption.
There is absolutely no way to prove that taking something from one person (leaving aside the question of whether this is even justifiable) to grant it to another will generate more “utility” than not doing so. What this means is, how much a “small” amount of income matters to someone may be disproportionately greater than what benefit the recipient experiences, meaning the harm done to the former can be very high even if the amount of money involved is “small” by your estimation. Of course I am not even granting that “poor” people will die in a market economy, as this is nonsense. They’ll likely be better off without an interventionist nanny state coddling them from gradle to grave.
I’d rather say an appeal to consequences.
In my opinion libertarian rights are also based on emotions.
- of course. I’m a consequentialist.