Ok, thank you because so far I have not seen you advocating nationalization
All that inheritance is, is a voluntary transfer of property. Voluntary tranfer of property is not somthing I oppose. On an actual free market these people would have to compete against those who are actually satisfying the desires of the consumer and therefore inheritence would probably be put into investment if the individual in question was not fit to run a firm. Where did I say that workers deserve nothing? Workers “deserve” what they are payed, just as buisnessmen usually deserve what they are payed on a free market. Pure capitalism doesn’t exist in the world today. Also, wages tend to equal productivity in the long run, and especially in a healthy economy. Furthermore it is the property of the firm owner that alows the working class individual to work, recieve wages, and so forth. The world wouldn’t work without buisnessmen either, the laborer is payed what they are willing to recieve in order to work, this is the point.
I always find it odd how you communists always feel that you are entitled to use their arbitrary dictates to command and design the entirity of human society, strange that individuals working voluntarily are so naive and need you to act as their benevolent patriarch, for it is you and your ilk who know what is best for these poor, poor children. Wherever do find your widom? And your strenght? Both of which have aluded so many men great and small for so long?
So first of all you just admitted that these individuals benefit by the existence of captialism. Furthermore in a real free market firms would flock to this area in order to make sure that this cheap labor is used for their benefit, and overtime wages will rise to the free market levels. Charity would also help greatly. I would also be much more concerned about these “labor armies” that are unemployed and would jump at these higher wages and getting them employed than those who are already employed. Furthermore wages tend to much productive capabilites, capital accumulation over time leads to better standards of living, and often profits for a company are often reinvested into higher wages.
sorry wilderness i didn not intend on missing them, its just i read most but kind of got burried in other messages, i dont fully understand what you said that is the problem i think.
I’m not quite sure how any democratic government isn’t an elective dictatorship.
How would you determine what “equal” was? How could you be sure the dictator would be benign, considering he was so selfish?
Well, I wanted to be as free as possible. Initially I blamed “greedy” people for the feeling of helplessness I felt, and the injustice I perceived through the world, but came to realize it was the existence of the state apparatus, rather than individuals, that allow systematic exploitation to occur.
That’s cool. I don’t know if there really is a problem. If you can go back in the thread to the last two posts I addressed to you those are unanswered and if you could respond in kind to any statements or questions I brought up it would really help out.
I was thinking about you when he was here. I knew you would have liked to intellectually engage him, even though the engagement became a bit overwhelming for him. Lots of people trying to talk to him, and he didn’t have any bearings to center from to intellectually attack us. I’m sure both made it difficult for him.
I think I realized something during the barrage against the poor fellow.
That when one favors socialism based on an misplaced morality, it is best to attack from the notion of Utility, but when one proposes socialism on grounds of unsound calculation in efficiency, It is best to respond with ethics in the tradition of Rothbard and Hoppe.
Well its kinda like Mises says, that you can’t argue with someone’s value judgements. If a person really is open minded then perhaps whatever their perspective is can be corrected, but usually their assertion is like a value judgement in and of itself, an ultimate end and not a means. if this is the case then the other method of attack must be used.
Consider the socialist who comes at it from a moral perspective. Only in the rarest circumstances will the line of natural rights and so on put forward by Locke and developed by Rothbard and Hoppe be effective. In which case when confronted with such we ought to change over to the utilitarian approach, and show that their system is completely unworkable, akin to them saying that we should establish a garden of Eden, with the reply of reality that it can not be so established.
On the other hand a person who proposes socialism on utilitarian grounds may be more vulnerable to ratiocination along economic lines.
This is only the rule when confronted with someone espousing socialism. for the run of the mill statist, the common Republican or Democrat of the United States, I always start with Rothbardian ethics. And as often as the individual has stayed in the discussion, they have always at least moderated their views to that of a minarchist.
It seems Greg wants to justify his position purely on moral grounds without any economic theory to back it up. Until he gives me something scientific to chew on and consider, I can’t respond in full faith as he hasn’t flipped his cards face up. That is what is needed; a theory of economics that justifies coerced distribution of wealth (whether it’s from the producers to the consumers or vice versa). Moral arguments can be twisted to fit just about any context, an economic theory cannot as it follows set premises to set ends.
hey guys im back, and yer it is a tad overwhelming having 10 people challenge diffrent angles of a theory but i am trying my best.
everyone puts emotion it there theory because its something they believe in, however i will admit that i have some statistics wrong, it was around 60% of wealth is inherited in the UK.