Comments on: Opportunities and outcomes

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:30:18 +0000

decnavda, no worries. I’ve often wanted an ‘edit comments’ ability to fix typos, bad italics, botched links, as well as more substantive things.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:58:35 +0000

doug- Actually, after I posted that, I regreted my comments to you as unnecessarily assuming an us vs them mentality. My apologies.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:20:00 +0000

Sorry, missed the new CT protocol that said it isn’t civil to say something a lone libertarian might not have thought about. For my penalty, I will now reread the whole thread three times.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:59 +0000

doug- If you reread this thread, you will find that the only person to come out against the existence of limited liability corporations was a libertarian, nicholas. linden- Of course the creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game. When two individuals or entities for an ecconomic partnership, they do so because as a partnership, they can make more money than either can seperately. What to do with the extra wealth? It should be split, with each side getting the most they can freely negotiate. This splitting is a zero-sum game nesseled inside of the positive-sum game. If either partner just lets the other side take all of the newly generated wealth, they are giving away their fair share. Corporations are ecconomic partnerships between individuals and the state. Decreases in corporate taxes beyond what is designed to maximize revenue for the government are essentially the government giving away its fair share of the positive sum created wealth to the corporation. brett- As explained above, the current system redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. If Robin Hood is wrong, Reverse Robin Hood is worse.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:23:13 +0000

“You are, of course, refering to the wallet you just picked out of someone else’s pocket.” And here we have the crux of the matter, which is that you can’t just assume that if somebody’s wallet is fatter than average, it must be stuffed with ill gotten loot, and can justly be taken from them. Guilt is an individual matter, which must be individually proven in each specific case. And income redistribution schemes don’t do that, do they?

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:03:47 +0000

Continuing the examination of Germany, from way up-thread… Doug: But of course, remember that other kinds of equality come into play; to be a non-graduate technical worker in Germany is not at all the same thing as to be a non-graduate technical worker in the USA, particularly in terms of job security. – dsquared be successful (as defined above by djw) without being a member of the managerial class ? this makes Doug?s complaints about inequality in the German educational system a bit beside the point. – jeremy osner I’m surprised that writers from the left would defend such a massive limitation on equality of opportunity in return for hoped-for security later. What we’re talking about, in practice, is tracking children at around age 10 into educational opportunities that essentially replicate their parents’ background. Inherited privelige and greater opportunities (higher education) and inherited limitations (trade schools). Nevermind what the Americans are or aren’t doing, this is an undesirable approach. Honor the smart people on the factory floor, or on the building site. But defend a system that has denied their full potential? Just because that factory floor job is supposedly secure? I thought equality of opportunity was what we were talking about how to achieve. (We can sing the song of industrial restructuring and bankruptcy, too, and see how that security works in practice. Add that the presumed security in practice entrenches unemployment rates nearing 10 percent, and looks like a system even further from the claims made for it in the original post.) On a non-German note, a brief word about limited liability corporations. At the ground level, they tend to increase opportunity for people of modest to moderate means who want to start a business. Incorporating lets you separate your business risks from your personal risks, and that encourages business formation and wealth creation. Without this separation, only people who had enough money to be able to afford to lose it would be starting businesses, which is not exactly a way to get to equality of opportunity.

By: linden

linden — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:49:17 +0000

“You are, of course, refering to the wallet you just picked out of someone else’s pocket.” The creation of wealth is not a zero sum game. The amount of wealth is not finite. Just because I get wealthy doesn’t mean others become poor. When this does happen, it is because the law is violated—Enron’s the perfect example. Think of Bill Gates. The richest man on earth. How many millionaires has Microsoft made? How many jobs in non-US countries does information technology provide? Quite a few and it’s expanding every day. I believe that providing equality of opportunity is vital to success in this country, but it will never be absolute because there are factors the government cannot control without greatly infringing on individual rights: the quality of parenting, cultural elements, chance, etc. Our greatest weakness is the failing public schools system. As a graduate of an American public school, I wouldn’t put a dog in an American public school. I do not believe all taxes are theft; however, I do believe there is a point where taxes become punitive and regressive. They at this point become theft. I worry we are quickly approaching that point.

By: linden

linden — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:26:53 +0000

Hey, decnavda, you may be interested to know that there are homeless people in the blogosphere. () Try telling them they’re not poor. Anyone can go to a FREE public library in the US and get a FREE email address.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:40:56 +0000

You are, of course, refering to the wallet you just picked out of someone else’s pocket.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:19:50 +0000

Decnavda, I prefer to think of it as, “Let’s quit before you clout me over the head, and take my wallet.”

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:01:22 +0000

Of course, I now fully expect someone to post a link to a blog maintianed by an unusually sofisticated homeless person whostops by the library each day to log on. I am sure they exist, but are not representative by a long shot.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:50:36 +0000

“I can list you off some non-rich-an-cap blogs if you like.” This illustrates my point: These people have BLOGS!. I am an SSI attorney. In three years, I have had maybe two clients with an EMAIL address, and I live in frick’en San Francisco! If you have the time and rescources to blog, you are not REALLY poor.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:46:06 +0000

“Furthermore, your ad hominem is not only irrelevant but inaccurate. Many, perhaps even most, of the anarcho-capitalists I know of are not rich; I can list you off some non-rich-an-cap blogs if you like. I assure you they condemn forced redistribution just as assiduously as I.” 1. It is not irrelevant. As I was trying to point out, you were not making a moral argument for amnesty, you were proposing a truce. This is negotiation, and the relative position of parties is relevant to any negotiation. You have since made an argument I had not heard before – the let one innocent free rather than convict ten guilty. But I still agree with matt there there is no physical property free of coersive transfer, and I found nothing new in your response once again throwing up your hands at the inability of rectifying anything. 2. It is not innacurate. I am not suprised you think so however. I have traveled in many libertarian circles myself, and I know few consider themselves well-off. This is because they tend not to be as rich as their relatives, or as rich as they could be if they cared as much about making money as promoting libertarianism, and certainly not as rich as they in their capitalist dreams want to be. Most are underemployed suburban white men who mouch off of well off relatives instead of the government. They therefore take the invisible privledges of their socioecconomic background for granted, think of themselves as “poor”, and do not understand the situation of America and world’s REAL poor.

By: loren

loren — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:34:26 +0000

thomas: “Er, I like Nozick, you like Rawls. Is there anything else to say?” Yes: Rawls is more persuasive. heh heh. oh, this damn thing is on again …

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:26:43 +0000

Nicholas- So, my slave analogy does not work because no one has a right to own a slave, including a person who freely invests legitimate hard-earned income in one. So freeing the slave deprived no one of legitimately held property. Earlier you stated that limited liability companies should not exist. So, we can just nationalize all private corporations, disolve them, auction off the assets, and distribute the proceeds in a Rawlsian manner. Problem solved?