Wrong, the more wealth one has the lower the marginal utility of exchangable goods.
Wrong, value is agent relative. It cannot be compared between people.
Anyway, as I said before, the poor benefit far more from society than the rich do, because in a free society one can only become rich through providing a service valued by others. So do you suggest the poor pay more?
As it turns out, the rich would pay more for their PDAs, as they’d demand better quality security for their larger houses and more expensive cars. However, neither you nor I can determine this, nor is there any way or even any such thing as a “fair price”.
I don’t think I understand whether your security provider is voluntary or not. If this is a free market scenario, the security provider sets his prices and so will the competitors. It’s up to the individual to decide which provider they want to go with, if they want to have one at all.
First off, thank you for actually addressing what I said. Most people on this forum seem to be incapable of looking past labels.
I was not referring to THEIR consumerism, but, as you put it:
So the wealth of the wealthy is dependent upon the ability of OTHERS to consume his offered goods. The poor only benefit in that they have the POTENTIAL to become rich - the wealthy who have utilized that potential successfully still benefit more than the poor who have not.
And to note: I am NOT talking about society, I am talking about security - this is a distinction I have seen pointed out in multiple areas. Society provides a market, Security protects the wealth of the individual earned from the market. two roles, two terms, two concepts. “Fair price” wasn’t the issue, as “fair” is a value judgement - the assessment still stands that the resource wealthy benefit more from security than the resource poor.
As it turns out, we can - this is the distinction between inferior and superior goods. And as long as tiered quality exists, people with greater levels of income will desire better versions of the same good, other non-price factors aside [sentimentality, personal taste, etc.].
Agreed, but at a certain point, the security provided creates external benefits to others, never mind the fact that “security” can often become a localized monopoly on it’s own - there is a singular security force in town that has enough power to a) satisfy all other supply b) drive competitors out of the market. All of this can operate within a free market.
It’s no problem, I don’t see what’s got everybody so aggravated about this post, it’s clearly written and hardly ridiculous.
I think you’re misunderstanding me (not to be condescending). My point was that the rich can only become rich by providing a highly valued good to society. As such they contribute more to society than the poor do. Thus it follows that the poor should paid for security. Not to mention, it is the least talented that gain most, relatively speaking, from capital accumulation and the like.
Essentially security and society might as well be the same thing in this context. You’re pointing out that social order and the market enables people to become rich and to benefit from the division of labour. In order for this to happen there needs to be clearly defined property rights, for which PDAs are required.
As for fair price, it essentially seems to be what you’re getting at. A fair price for defence. Even if we could somehow measure utility between people (which we never will be able to do, as it is subjective and can only be ranked, not measured) for the reason I said above the poor would still benefit most. Furthermore if we were to ignore these stumbling blocks in your theory it would take a value judgement to get from “the rich get more benefit from the PDAs” to “they should pay more”.
And in regards to this, they would pay more. Because they valued the service more highly and because there would be less supply of PDAs willing to spend large amounts of money defending. It’s that simple, of course, there’s always the possibility they didn’t mind about the security of their home, or that they would live in a more safe area and as such wouldn’t have the same demand for it, as say the poor person in the slum would.
I’m not too sure what you were getting at with the inferior/ superior goods point so if you wouldn’t mind expanding upon it/ claryfing. Although the distinction is entirely arbitrary.
Yes, that is probably correct, as they have more assets to protect and insure. It will cost more. Of course there’s the choice of not protecting it too.
On the other points, read the essay by Hoppe I posted. In fact read his whole books, Democracy - the God that Failed and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.
In a free market, the price of security might end up being either more or less expensive for the richest segments of the population than the rest; it would fully depend on contractual agreements and, hence, on people’s willingness to pay a certain amount for a given service… i don’t really see where the fairness issue arises? or why it would matter that some people benefit more from the said service than others.
RE/ Is a voluntary, fully represented republic evil? Where every citizen consents to participate and decisions are made on actual majority vote by the populus? [discussing voting ignorance aside, assuming that those that vote, care, and therefore bother to self-educate].
Well, if people did unanimously agree that later decisions be taken by majority voting, your republic would be perfectly fine and even libertarian [for an interesting example of a defence of such a position, see J.M. BUCHANAN, The Limits of Liberty]… Yet, in the absence of unanimity about both participation and majoritarianism, your republic would by opposition be evil.