I’m sorry, did I just hear an “anarchist” say what’s wrong with hierarchy? Please just call your self Ayn Randians, Hayekians, Lassiez-faire capitalists, but no t anarchists, please.
I think reality speaks for itself.
What’s wrong with kings owning and ruling all the land? Whats wrong with slavery?
Whats wrong with 1% of the population owning all the institutes of production and using 99% of the population for their profits?
The result is a huge gap between rich and poor, the princple of “might makes right” being put in practice, poverty, starvation, etc.
Why that is bad? Really? That means the top 3 richest people in the world have more wealth then the bottom 10% (600,000,000). Don’t you see how this translates to starvation and poverty?
But of course, private property rights are more important than human life.
Drace, you seem to be stuck on the nominal values money, and also thinking money = wealth, the two are not the same.
A basic example. Let us focus on “the poor”. If the price of goods fall, while pay stays the same, do people become more wealthy? refrigerators, air conditioning, running water, large assortments of food, electricity, computers, cell phones, TV.
These are things that the poor can get, that even the top 1%, 3%, 10%, and 80% of a couple of centuries ago could not.
Also, I think you fall under the fallacy of thinking the economy is a pie, and the fallacy of thinking that trade is a zero-sum game.
At this point I’d be suprised if you could add 2+2 and say whether its larger than 6 or not.
If there is 100 sandwitches, and one person owns 40 of them, and the top 5 own 60 of them, and the top 10 own 80%, then I think you can see the problem?
But hell
Poverty and inequality exists at massive measures. There is no denying that. The best you can do is argue that this is the result of corporatism and the state, and the solution would be the abolition of the two.
How is this determined? Do you take the bottom rung of the wealth scale and say “hey, they have less than everyone else, therefore, they must be poor relative to the people who have more”?
Jesus, you guys are worse than trying to convince fascists that white power is shit.
If you can’t see the link between 1% of the population owning 40% of the wealth and poverty, then theres not much I can do.
So it seems caring for the state humanity and its troubles is emotional, and thus irrelevant in a political discussion? But of course, if we care for private property, its not emotional. Its a natural right that cannot be argued with.
May I ask what your definition of “per capita wealth” is exactly?
Ok, so you say the economy is not zero-sum, but your comparison of money with sandwiches shows that you hold exactly that view… while at the same time focusing only on the nominal value of money, and not the actual value of money.
Also, as a side note, you may have stumbled into why sandwiches are not good as a medium of exchange.
My argument was that private property was not that basis of all morals and that it could not be considered a natural right. So I don’t see what your quesiton has to do with this.
Ok lets say 30 sandwiches are created per hour. One percent of the population owns the sandwich factory, while 95% of the population labors for them. The rest of the population is upper class occupations (doctors, lawyers, etc) that make services available to the rest of the workers.
After a year, 262 800 sandwiches are made. 40% of it still belongs to the top 1%. While new wealth (sandwiches) is created, it is distributed in-proportionally.
