Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:52:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I prefer "Would Libertopia cause the needy to get less?"
>
> Libertopia infers that it is accomplishable - that man is willing to
> re-distribute his wealth.
Pardon? Isn't the fact that man is willing to redistribute his wealth a truism
since we see that it happens in every nation every day? But aside from that,
how is Libertopia dependant on that willingness any more than any economy?
> The fact that man, today, is willing to have kids
> working in sweat shops in the developing world to ensure he can have cheap
> trainers suggests to me that is not yet ready to re-distribute his wealth.
I guess I just don't understand the way you're using the term.
> Back to your question, my first question is less what? Everyone will have
> less money in Libertopia, as it will not exist in its current form (my
> understanding).
Hunh? How's that? Why wouldn't there be money? Or do you merely mean that
there would be room for competitive currencies?
> As for Wealth, even respected libertarian economists accept
> that there is no guarantee that the market can provide everything to
> everyone.
No organizatoin can provide everything to everyone. So it's a non-point. Or
am I misunderstaning?
> Indeed, even Larry's economic guru accepted that some tax will be
> required for areas of welfare (I am not sure which) as the market will not
> be able to provide it.
I haven't read it but I disagree. I wouldn't particularly support a flavor of
libertarianism with a welfare tax since taxation is theivery.
> Libertopia can not exist with welfare tax. So in
> terms of wealth, I think the needy would get less.
The real key, I think, is that the needy would be fewer. Since the entire
society would revolve around the ability to take care of oneself, everyone
would be more actualized. And since there would be more per capita wealth
generated, there would be more room for helping those who truly couldn't help
themselves.
> It then follows that less personal wealth means less health, less education,
> etc.
Except that with increased efficiency you get more with less. More education
with less cost. More helth coverage with less systemic waste.
> Finally, if you are tempted to overhaul your system of government, the test
> should not be "Would the needy get less?". It should be "Would the needy get
> more?".
No. It shouldn't. If the question "would the needy get less?" is answered
with a no, and we can see that some other thing would increase, then the
overhaul is worthy (but maybe still not worth the cost). The poor needn't get
a better than current deal for change to be worthy.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| I prefer "Would Libertopia cause the needy to get less?" Libertopia infers that it is accomplishable - that man is willing to re-distribute his wealth. The fact that man, today, is willing to have kids working in sweat shops in the developing world (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
231 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
|
|
|
|
