Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 16:33:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1015 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > [T]here's lots of areas of this current debate I've passed on simply because I
> > think the statements of the individuals stand fine and don't need debate
> > even if I find myself in disagreement (the subject of roads, for example,
> > which is nit-picky and I see no need to fault the Libertarian views).
>
> I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is
> symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the
> Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions
> will become better able to afford better conditions, while those unable to
> afford them will become increasingly unable to afford them.
I think you need to demonstrate this is actually the case, though. I don't
think it is. Ever heard the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3
generations"?
With a few exceptions, the idle rich children tend to dissipate their wealth
and the advantages of birth that they got. Key notion is that there is
constant movement into and out of various classes. What permanent
underclasses we DO have in the US (and there are some, currently) I would
lay the fault for squarely at the feet of government rather than with the
market.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
