I’m going hiking for 2 days. I’ll respond when I get back (just so you don’t think I"m “weaseling out.”)
You won’t get an answer because there isn’t one. This notion of equality, as well as other such ideals cannot be defined lest they be scrutinized and seen for what they are.
Anyone who has read The Fountainhead has witnessed (in my opinion) Rand’s finest moment when she tears apart the rationale behind the Gallant Gallstone. Very few people can dismantle collectivist ideals like Rand could.
On the matter of “wealth” equality, the entire notion highlights the ignorance of the people who would promote such an ideal. Wealth is psychological. If I think it is worth $1,000 to be tied up, whipped beaten and humiliated on camera, then this is an exchange of wealth for wealth. Expressing wealth only in “money” or physical terms is where you can spot the ecognorant. That said, there is also a strong dislike for capital disparity, but that has to occur for their to be a division of labor, without which, we may as all embrace anarcho-primitivism.
Again, the proponents of these ideals of economic equality very quickly realize if they do not already know that their position leads to all sorts of conclusions they cannot support, and so they can only speak of it superficially, and complain they are misunderstood, while never offering a complete explanation of the misunderstanding.
The most extreme version of equality as an ideal is Harrison Bergeron’s society.
Thx LS.
As I was walking to lunch it also dawned on me how society that employed a productive division of labor could not in any way hold onto wealth equality. The blessings of the division of labor, and comparative advantage, necessarily implies disparity. And we would not want it any other way.
I was encouraged to come back and see your reasoning similar to mine.
bump
It doesn’t look like you are even attempting to answer “the challenge.”
Equality; http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&q=define%3Aequality&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1
It’s not a hard concept to understand.
You want a strict defnition of it? Impossible, it will vary from person to person. Give me a strict definition of capitalism… or even inequality for that matter.
Good thing I requested your definition of equality. (Your referring to you who identifies as an egalitarian).
There are problems for mathematicians where you can make 1=.9 and other such nonsense. Is that equality?
No. Do you really find that question to be relevant to egalitarianism?
This is all, as I said, a red herring. It looks pretty, but there’s no real substance. THe focus is, and should be, for so-called egaliatarians is power relationships. Income (in other, and much more important terms, wealth) inequality is the prime material source of all coercive power (you can’t coerce people w/o the resources to do so. If you just say “do this now!” They can either listen or they can’t. But if you start punching them, you are using your wealth of physical prowess to coerce them).
What are you even refering to? What is “it”? Is “it” my “challenge”? Why should I change my focus to power-relationships and their relations to “so-called egalitarians”? I don’t even know what egalitarians believe in, I’m trying to get some answers, little luck so far though. If you really feel this is a red herring don’t bother responding anymore, because you’ll just be wasting both of our time.
Enjoy your hiking.
Words do have meanings. I made this thread three days ago:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/definition-of-capitalism-and-free-market/17562
The whole, equality / non-discrimination argument is a mess. The only way to promote such pap is to suspend or deny any understanding of economics.
For the record, I do not support the statement ‘Income inequality is the prime material source of all coercive power’.
But your refutation of it, doesn’t really address the issue. Let me clarify. Epicurs claims that ‘income inequality is (the prime source) source of all coercive power’. You can read this in two ways: ‘income inequality might cause coercive power’ or ‘income inequality will cause coercive power’. In both cases, it is not refuted by saying ‘well, you can’t reach equality without force!’ He’s only saying: when you have inequality, you will have (the possibility) of) coercive power. You can’t disprove that by saying ‘but if we want your ideal, we’ll have to use force too!’ That doesn’t refute the statement: ‘if you have income inequality, you will have (the possibility of) coercive power’.
See what I mean? :x
Btw: your counterpoint actually enforces his point: if you want to reach income inequality - which means that you have inequality - it means you have to use force.
For the record; I don’t think income inequality is a big determant of coercive power. I do think that coercive power is often used to increase income inequality. The income of the state is enormous. There is no bigger inequality than that.
I really don’t get that support for ‘equality’ either. Equality never ever can be a moral principle - besides, maybe, the ‘equality of rights’, ‘equal liberty’, ‘equal moral agency’ something. For short: libertarian political theory.
When I look at social issues - poor people, bad parents, unlucky people - I never think: ‘how sad these people are so unequal relative to me/others!’ I think: ‘that situation sucks, how can we/i/society/whatever help them?’ I don’t get why we have a need to force upon ‘equality’.
Take another example; I do get the notion of empowerment and I think it’s an important notion - ‘teach someone how to fish, not give him a fish’ kind a thingy - but you don’t ‘empower’ people to make them ‘equal’ in any significant way. You don’t empower people to make them have as much money as someone else, or to have an equal stock in a company. People get empowered by relevant options. If I’m an employee in company x and y and have some savings invested in a trust fund, I’m way more ‘equal’ than if I have an equal share in company x and work there too. The power people have over me is, ceteris paribus, way bigger in the second story than in the first.
So I get the left-libertarian sentiment, but really; it’s misguided.
Society profits from (justly acquired) inequalities of wealth and control over companies. The notion of ‘equality’ has nothing to do with it.
etc. etc.
In either case it is claimed as a cause. I am asking for an explantion of how it logically follows that pre-existing income disparity is a key cause of coercive power.
I understand your critique, but it does show that his argument is circular. That no matter how you look at it, some disparity has to exist somewhere.
But the greater question is, if you have true equality, some how the threat of violence and coercion will magically go away? Also is there a theoretical argument that no coercive group could form, given that all men had equal wealth? I don’t see how anyone could prove this. That equal wealth eliminates man’s inherent desire to want more.
It points out the circularity. Also what are your thoughts on my other two points?
-
Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on your premise)
-
Explain how you can you can even logically create a wealth equal society, without violating the concept of praxeology,
-
Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on the premise)
-
Explain how you can you can create a wealth equal society, without violating praxeology.
And you’ve helped me solidify my third critique.
-
Explain how you can create a wealth equal society, without relying on an authority that maintains the equality, thus making a concession of an inherent level of disparity. The argument being circular.
-
Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on your premise)
-
Explain how you can you can even logically create a wealth equal society, without violating the concept of praxeology,
-
Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on your premise)
-
Explain how you can you can even logically create a wealth equal society, without violating the concept of praxeology,
“In either case it is claimed as a cause. I am asking for an explantion of how it logically follows that pre-existing income disparity is a key cause of coercive power.” <= I was just criticizing your comment on that specific issue, which I don’t think is the correct way to respond to it. I have no idea why it would be a ‘key cause’, though. (Wealth inequality can cause coercion, just as wealth equality can cause coercion, in my book at least.)
“I understand your critique, but it does show that his argument is circular. That no matter how you look at it, some disparity has to exist somewhere.” <= Yup.
“But the greater question is, if you have true equality, some how the threat of violence and coercion will magically go away? Also is there a theoretical argument that no coercive group could form, given that all men had equal wealth? I don’t see how anyone could prove this. That equal wealth eliminates man’s inherent desire to want more.”
<= Nope. But he wasn’t saying ‘all violence will go away’, but the implicit ‘a key cause of violence will go away’. Again; I don’t buy that, but that’s what he saying, so this doesn’t really addresses what he’s saying.
“1. Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on the premise)” <= In my book, that would be nonsense. Some kinds of violence might go away, not others.
“Explain how you can you can create a wealth equal society, without violating praxeology.” <= Persuading people voluntarily to match up incomes and donate it to others? Seems like the only way we can do it.
Why subsidize losers? What incentive do they have to earn more if they have access to welfare?
Who are you calling losers?
Regardless of that: if you are asking why we should ‘persuade people voluntarily to match up incomes and donate it to others’, than you should ask someone who actually supports that position. I’m not sure if there’s anyone really here who defends that position. I don’t quite get the left-libertarians notion of equality, but as far as I get it, this is nòt what they mean.
I don’t quite get the left-libertarians notion of equality, but as far as I get it, this is nòt what they mean.
Damn it! I’ve got nothing.
They should just abandon the concept all together.
They should just abandon the concept all together.
No, not yet, my curiosity hasn’t peaked.
This might be somewhat off-topic, but how are you defining “losers”? Do you think that temporary assistance (of the charitable kind, of course) is ever warranted?
As I mentioned in the thread that started all of this, people on the “left” don’t think that being born black, female, in a poor area, etc. should condemn a person. They wouldn’t write such people off as “losers” due to factors they can’t control. (Note: I’m not accusing you of doing otherwise.)
False. I was born with arms, and a brain. Thats all thats needed.
First, that’s wealth. Second, you have to have “stronger” arms and brains… which means you have to have “more” wealth… I mean, it’s really not that hard to understand. I guess if you define wealth in commodities or capital… that’s on you.
Pay attention. You said wealth inequality is the prime material source of coercive power.
So explain to us how you rectify natural wealth inequality which will result from day to day market activities. How is this a strawman? Your asserting that wealth inequality results in coercive power. So how do you prevent wealth ine-quality?
That’s a different argument. Like I said, the first one was a straw man.
The answer to your question lies in a democratic economy. Where everyone has equal oppurtunity (I know, the right wing straw man likes to say that’s actually what they support.. but come on… who believes that) to resource, natural wealth inequalities lose their power. That’s the point. Tyranny only happens when a tyrant has the material means to impose his will.
Stop weaseling and evading. Explain to us how Coercive powers are entirely dependent on pre-existing income disparity. I am not the one making the assertion, you are. Stop trying to flip things around. No one is begging the question of anything. (At least learn a bit about logic before making accusations)
I am not the one here “weaseling and evading.” I have attempted to explain myself many times. You are the one who merely asserted “wealth inequality has no basis in coercion.” If you’re going to assert that, make an argument. Or critique mine. But you just merely asserting the opposite of mine does nothing to disprove mine, nor prove yours. It’s called a fallacy… you’d think you’d be familiar with that.
It in no way has to be true, because a “wealth equal society” is impossible. People have different values. I don’t like to deal in false hypotheticals… I would barely even call them hypothetical.. more like metaphysical. (hehe, I just answered your #2 and I wasn’t even trying)
Explain to us how coercion, is entirely dependant on pre-existing income in-equality.
It’s amazing how just one word can change the argument. I said “the prime material basis of coercion.” I never said the “only basis of coercion.” Many people want to coerce. And they can want to do that till they puke… but it won’t happen unless they have some material basis to impose their will. That basis has to be stronger than the others… not that hard to understand. You even said it yourself.
- Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on your premise)
It doesn’t have to be true at all, because a “wealth equal society” is impossible; people have different values. (hehe, I just answered the #2 and I hadn’t even read it yet)
What we can do is provide a framework where one man’s gain does not become his means of coercion
The circularity and repetitiveness of your responses, is a model example of all you have ever offered on these forums my friend. Petty argumentation with never a hope, even if in error, of conceding points to help arrive at an honest conclusion.
There is so much wrong with this statement… the least of which is that it is purely an ad hominem.
(sry, don’t know what happened to the font)