The inheritance of talents is different than the inheritance of property because property can help a talent to be recognized. A talented problem solver may discover agricultural technologies. But if that same problem solver had been in a different environment - that person might discover technologies that have never been seen. The talent of the person is only able to express itself in a way that is inherently limited by the property available.
I recognize that concepts of fairness differ from one person to the next. So don’t let Friedman cause you to stereotype all socialist. I think it would be most fair to have an environment where all children are able to express their talents so that those talents can be identified and allowed to flourish. I think a fair system attempts to minimize the property disadvantages that harm the entire society.
Friedman really creates a strawman here by stating that inheritance of talents and property are the same.
JUSTICE, n. A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
Look into the ludic fallacy and the fallacy of the single cause. The point is, you have no idea what the probability is that this hypothetical talented problem-solver “might discover technologies that have never been seen” if he had been in a different environment. You can’t (logically speaking) take for granted that there must exist some environment from which the outcome will result.
Furthermore, it seems like you’re ignoring the dynamic nature of property and markets. The distribution of property in the present does not guarantee the same distribution of property in the future.
I have no idea what the emphasized part above is supposed to mean. So all I can say for now is… that’s nice? Thanks for sharing?
Actually hang on a minute. You mention “the property disadvantages that harm the entire society”. Can you explain just what harm this is? I think I see a subtle example of the nirvana fallacy in action here.
Ideally - a tax is collections used to pay for the cost of government and its purpose. And ideally - we have consented to that government and its purposes.
So basically you’re saying people should be able to opt out of paying for a government (or being subject to its force) if they do not consent to it, yes?
Ideally - yes. And ideally - governments are self-organizing unions of intelligent and respectful individuals. But we all know this is not an ideal world. So I do attempt to propose ideas that move in the general direction of my ideals.
But consider this claim… capitalism requires government to protect property rights. And there will be people who do not agree with capitalism - and therefore they will not be consenting to that government.
It is a delimma that can’t be ignored… I think it is the essential delimma which requires intelligent compromise… the tax system I propose being a form of compromise where corruption is reduced “by design”.
Explain how capitalism requires government to protect property rights. How are you defining “government”? Do you distinguish it from “law” and “order”?
Government is management - whether it is the management of my fingers as they type or the management of relationships with other people.
Laws are a policy. Order, predictability, and security are among the intentions of people who govern and manage.
Capitalists stake claim to land. An individual capitalist is susceptible to other individuals who may or may not agree with the property claims or might not be aware of them. So the capitalist is forced to manage/govern relationships with others. If the capitalist fails to engage in relationships with other people - then the property is not protected.
The United States government is the evolution of a creation based in capitalist ideology. It intrinsically ignores the consent of people yet to be born because the unborn had no say in its initial creation. The government was created with the intent of allowing future generations to make changes. But it was already a capitalist government based upon unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property.