Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 17:26:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1271 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^)
I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system,
Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully
free market won't result in the systematic, widespread, and polarizing
effects on society that I've (albeit briefly) described.
In addition, the idea of "the idle rich" is something of a straw man, if I
read your intent correctly. I infer (correct me if I'm wrong) that you mean
the wealthy individual who sits on his $$ and makes no constructive effort
to increase or at least preserve his capital, and thereby squanders it in
the not-so-long run. If that's who you mean, then I agree--tough for him.
I don't think that caricature represents the majority of the wealthy class.
Further, prior to labor laws, workers--including children--were treated as
little more than beasts slaving for pennies while their employers reaped the
profits. The disproportion between work and reward was horrific. How, in
such a system, could the common laborer have made any financial improvement
to his condition? And how, as the culture descended directly from that
employment market (by which I mean that many of the class lines were
established before the current incarnation of US labor) can anyone suggest
that the members of the market are equally free to advance?
I know that you and others have said that Libertopia is an ideal rather
than a place, and I accept that for rhetorical purposes. I would propose
that to achieve something close to Libertopia in the real world it would be
necessary to obliterate the class system and all property, and then start
from scratch. Otherwise someone will be given an unfair leg-up into
Libertopia--unfair, because it would have come from the same corrupt system
that Libertopia purports to reject.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
