Majority of economists support wealth distribution

[IcarusAngel]

Did you know that a majority of "economists" support redistribution of wealth, investment in technology, welfare to the poor, and so on? They also support public schools, anti-discrimination laws, safety regulations, and gun control. [1] I saw one poll that had a majority of them liking UHC.

In fact, over 60 percent of economists consider themselves progressives. Repeat: over 60% of economists are progressives. 63%, to be precise [2]. And only about 20% call themselves "Libertarian" or "conservative," combined. The social science of economics is becoming left-wing like the all the other

This is even higher than the amount of engineers who are progressive. This is funny because conservatives and capitalists claim that the economic injustices of capitalism have been "scientifically proven." The fact is, however, that most economists can't stand the "Austrian school" which uses English grammar to try and "prove" their foundation, instead of the methods of economists. And there are probably as many left-libertarian economists as right-ones.

Economists are trying to reform their field also to make it more like science, and when they do I think economics will be another liberal social science like the rest of them.

The point is next time some conservative shithead says we can't have wealth redistribution, probably a libertarian, because it violates the laws of economics in capitalism, remind him that a majority of economists DO support wealth redistribution

What do people here think of the social science of economics? Of course, if you check your bookshelf, it is far more likely you will have books by historians, political scientists (I consider even Marx more of a polisci guy), etc., than economists. But even many economists might have something to say about the unfairness of capitalism and the problems of the market.

Liberal economics:
Economics Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/)
Center for Economic and Policy Research (http://www.cepr.net/)

left-wing economics:

Parecon (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm)

Life after capitalism (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/17/from_sds_to_life_after_capitalism)

Marxist economics (http://www.marxisteconomics.com/)

"Capitalism is a horrific system. Capitalism is a system that breeds an environment in which dignity is robbed, in which people are out—nice guys finish last, in the words of a famous American baseball coach, or in my more aggressive formulation, garbage rises, meaning it’s a competitive environment in which you care about others, you suffer. If you violate others, you advance. It’s an environment in which there’s about 30 million poor people. There’s about seven million homeless people and seven million empty hotel rooms. There’s war, and so on." -- Michael Albert

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiness of men for the nastiness of motives can work for the benefit of all."
-John Maynard Keynes

"The struggle between people and corporations will be the defining battle of the twenty-first century. If the corporations win, liberal democracy will come to an end. The great social democratic institutions which have defended the weak against the strong - equality before the law, representative government, democratic accountability, and the sovereignity of parliament - will be toppled. If, on the other hand, the corporate attempt on public life is beaten back, then democracy may re-emerge the stronger for it's conquest. But this victory cannot be brokered by our representatives. Democracy will survive only if the people in whose name they govern rescue the state from it's captivity."
-George Monbiot - Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain (http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?p=882)

[1]Source: Boxx, W. T. & Quinlivan, G. M. (1994). The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham, MA: University Press of America.

[2] ibid

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Austrian school is less relevant today than it was twenty years ago, but with the wide distribution of the internet many libertarians overemphasize its relationship with political movements. A lot of economists think Lincoln's fiat greenback would be a better alternative to the gold standard, which places a large question mark over one of the core values Austrians hold dear.

As was demonstrated in the thread about ice cream trucks, the market can and often does fail. Friedman acknowledged that these cases existed, but he just passed it off as coincidental and that it's more of an abnormality than the norm. Von Mises and his legion of followers believe the market is akin to a god, where any problems are either the fault of the government or dismally small and redeemable.

I recommend Understanding Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Capitalism-Competition-Command-Change/dp/0195138651/ref=cm_lmf_tit_19). It's an excellent criticism of the more conservative and libertarian branches of economics. On that note I actually recommend practically any book from the following list. Included in the reading are books which show the similarity between slavery justifications and capitalism, how capitalism underdeveloped the black community, how capitalism does indeed put people from other countries into poverty, and most importantly - the many wrong defenses put forward for it. http://www.amazon.com/Criticizing-Capitalism/lm/RQMOI2ITZ079A/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_2_rdssss1?pf_rd_p=253462201&pf_rd_s=listmania-center&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0195138651&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17MNF8XX5C3KH1RGD3AW

[pusher robot]

Well, there is a sample selection problem here. Most "economists" are state employees, and have a vested interest in promoting expanded power for the state, and, by proxy, themselves.

The other issue is that economics itself - even austrian or chicago - does not mandate any particular political orientation. What it does do is allow one to figure out how much particular political proposals would cost. Sometimes the cost might be worth the benefit. Sometimes it might not. Those judgments are often subjective, and economics has nothing to say about the rightness or wrongness of those judgments. So, for example, economics could tell me that universal health care will cost a certain amount of wealth, and create certain kinds of incentive problems, etc. It can also tell me certain benefits that might result, e.g., certain savings in consolodation, etc. But some of the more important benefits are subjective, e.g., "fairness" or "compassion." I then as an individual have to decide whether these costs are worth the benefits, and that's where the political decision gets made.

[Self-Owner]

The thing is, I think you're just attacking a strawman here (I get the impression it happens a lot on this site). No one says that 'we can't have wealth redistribution because it violates the laws of economics' because if they did it would betray a profound lack of understanding. What libertarians can and do say is that economics tells us the (economic) costs and benefits of redistribution, and they are often high. As Pusher Robot says, economics alone says nothing about political proposals, just how much they would cost.

So in reality, the economic (which is different from the moral) argument against redistribution is commonly that it has certain undesirable incentive effects. If you're willing to embrace these effects, or think that they are outweighed by the benefits, you're still more than able to come out in favour of redistribution - which is what the economists you mention are doing.

And incidentally, it's ironic that you argue since 60% of economists are in favour of redistribution it is economically sound, while still adhering to a labour theory of value which approximately 99% of economists repudiate.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Did you know that a majority of "economists" support redistribution of wealth, investment in technology, welfare to the poor, and so on? They also support public schools, anti-discrimination laws, safety regulations, and gun control.
Yeah, I knew that. I'd imagine most people did. Seriously, you've just described most capitalist countries on earth. People have moved on from the Austrian school, you're going to have to think of more intelligent arguments than that.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

99% is stretching the imagination, but that little tidbit aside, economists don't necessarily "reject" it so much as they say it's unprovable. Nor is the LTV instrumental to the defense of socialism. Marginalist defenses were developed in the '80s as a defense for mutualism.

[Self-Owner]

99% is stretching the imagination, but that little tidbit aside, economists don't necessarily "reject" it so much as they say it's unprovable. Nor is the LTV instrumental to the defense of socialism. Marginalist defenses were developed in the '80s as a defense for mutualism.


Well the LTV is unprovable, like all theories of value ('value' is a normative term, so it's hard to prove it corresponds to one thing or another.) It is, though, falsifiable. Anyway, can you elaborate more on the marginalist defences of mutualism? I don't know much about mutualism, but Wiki tells me "Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value" straight off the bat.

[Robespierre2.0]

Meh... using the 'bandwagon effect' to prove a point is a bourgeois tactic IMO.

Now obviously, Keynesian economics are the most beneficial to capitalism- It may cost the bourgeoisie in the short-term, but in the long run, the welfare state encourages apathy and class-collaboration in the working class.

In fact, I'd say that Fascism- a single-party state run under Keynesian economic principles, is by far the most efficient form of capitalism. Fascism is naturally warlike and imperialistic, which means that as long as the nation is victorious in its endeavours, businesses will have a never-ending supply of cheap labour and markets to sell to. As I stated before, the welfare state will defuse the class struggle, but fascism has the added bonus of emphasizing race or nationality over class. Lastly, since the military clique in charge is all-powerful, tactical decisions and changes in policy can be made without the hindrance of parliamentary bickering.

Do I endorse fascism? Hell no, but I think the bourgeoisie are shooting themselves in the feet by not outwardly embracing their imperialist nature.

[Demogorgon]

There is talk here of economics only seeking to give the cost of any given policy. But it simply isn't true. That might be the case in a perfect world, but in the real world we all have our political biases and those of us with some degree of knowledge of economics are no exception. We will naturally tend towards whatever school of thought uses the methodology closest to giving us the answers we want to hear. Obviously we will try for accuracy, but we all have our prejudices.

Ignoring the Austrian school, because it is just one big strawman of capitalist economics anyway, things like the Chicago school set out to simply work out costs and benefits of whatever course of action might be followed. But the political bias of those who follow it means they will over-value certain courses of action and under-value others. I don't think for a moment it is done on purpose, but it seems foolish to me to deny that it is done subconsciously.

Case in point, right wing economists will often claim that wealth redistribution, or at least too much of it (very few want none at all), will have a larger cost than benefit because of the market distortion leading to deadweight loss. Maybe so, but they will heavily underestimate the costs involved in not redistributing wealth. Namely inequality. The right tends to argue that inequality does not matter so long as everyone has enough, but that is not so, once one is out of absolute poverty, whether they are in relative poverty or not is more important than the growth or decline in the amount they have. This is borne out by the consistent correlation between inequality and higher crime, lower life expectancy etc, something that is not particularly connected to overall level of wealth in society.

It is my belief that the costs of not redistributing wealth are considerably greater than the costs of doing so and I believe that the empirical evidence backs me up. My argument for such is not based on my moral belief in equality but on my examination of the economic facts. Those who disagree with me will likely claim I am balanced by my moral values. Maybe so, but they are just the same.

[Sendo]

Not all bourgeoisie care about long-term strategies. The Bush co. clearly demonstrates that it will take an unstable route to enrich a given clique. The Dems care more about Keynesianism, but even then......it's more and more rightist

[pusher robot]

It is my belief that the costs of not redistributing wealth are considerably greater than the costs of doing so and I believe that the empirical evidence backs me up. My argument for such is not based on my moral belief in equality but on my examination of the economic facts. Those who disagree with me will likely claim I am balanced by my moral values. Maybe so, but they are just the same.

Here's the thing though: we cannot rationally compare these things without quantifying them in some fashion. Economics gives us the tools to do that. Now you may argue, as many economists do, that our measurements are inaccurate, and that different models or methods provide more accurate measurements. If you believe that the benefits of redistribution outweighs the costs, then you are obligated to provide the mechanism by which you quantify those benefits, and at least some reasoning as to why they might be greater than the costs. I think if you could actually do this you would actually find most economists very open to your argument.

[Sendo]

What's the price of clean air for all to have? Who defines that? Who acts upon that? You can't quantify everything. Well, under pure, make-believe right-libertarianism, this would be essential...but I'm discussing reality.

[Demogorgon]

Here's the thing though: we cannot rationally compare these things without quantifying them in some fashion. Economics gives us the tools to do that. Now you may argue, as many economists do, that our measurements are inaccurate, and that different models or methods provide more accurate measurements. If you believe that the benefits of redistribution outweighs the costs, then you are obligated to provide the mechanism by which you quantify those benefits, and at least some reasoning as to why they might be greater than the costs. I think if you could actually do this you would actually find most economists very open to your argument.
The point is that this is an issue that is debated all the time. There is plenty of evidence that I am right. However left wing economists accept the evidence and right wing ones reject it. Not because of intentional bias, but because we all have our underlying prejudices causing us to tend towards certain evidence over others. That is my point.

[Self-Owner]

The point is that this is an issue that is debated all the time. There is plenty of evidence that I am right. However left wing economists accept the evidence and right wing ones reject it. Not because of intentional bias, but because we all have our underlying prejudices causing us to tend towards certain evidence over others. That is my point.

Well, there may well be economic costs associated with inequality. But even still, I don't think it's a case of simply totalling up the benefits, totalling up the costs and seeing which one is greater. Which course of action we should take is essentially a moral question. So if everyone was a utilitarian, and wanted to minimize costs, it might well make sense to redistribute wealth to abolish inequality (I don't think it even follows, but it's not obvious). But it's well known that utilitarianism doesn't capture all our moral intuitions, and that there are morally relevant factors above and aside from the costs and benefits.

To give you the standard example, imagine if there was a rioting crowd chasing after a criminal. They follow him to a neighboring town. When they get there, they mistakenly identify an innocent bystander as the criminal, and threaten that unless the town give him up, they will burn it to the ground. Now, it may well be that under a cost-benefit analysis, it turns out that giving the man up is 'cheapest.' Does this make it the right thing to do? No. And I think a lot of people feel the same about taking money from people who have, in their eyes, earned it, and giving it to those who haven't.

[Bud Struggle]

I believe the majority of Economists are unemployed. :(

[Demogorgon]

Well, there may well be economic costs associated with inequality. But even still, I don't think it's a case of simply totalling up the benefits, totalling up the costs and seeing which one is greater. Which course of action we should take is essentially a moral question. So if everyone was a utilitarian, and wanted to minimize costs, it might well make sense to redistribute wealth to abolish inequality (I don't think it even follows, but it's not obvious). But it's well known that utilitarianism doesn't capture all our moral intuitions, and that there are morally relevant factors above and aside from the costs and benefits.

To give you the standard example, imagine if there was a rioting crowd chasing after a criminal. They follow him to a neighboring town. When they get there, they mistakenly identify an innocent bystander as the criminal, and threaten that unless the town give him up, they will burn it to the ground. Now, it may well be that under a cost-benefit analysis, it turns out that giving the man up is 'cheapest.' Does this make it the right thing to do? No. And I think a lot of people feel the same about taking money from people who have, in their eyes, earned it, and giving it to those who haven't.

I am well aware of the arguments surrounding utilitarianism. You are going to have to come up with a damn good reason why we should accept inequality despite the fact it harms both society and the majority of individuals.

It is no good saying that it is wrong to take from people who have earned money and give it to those who haven't earned it, because that argument is best used against capitalism, a system where the very wealthy almost never earn their money but instead get it from rent or loaning money or profiting on others work or whatever else. Taking away their money and giving it to those who do work would fit your criteria for fairness better.

[pusher robot]

I am well aware of the arguments surrounding utilitarianism. You are going to have to come up with a damn good reason why we should accept inequality despite the fact it harms both society and the majority of individuals.

Well one possible reason could be that, while it does hurt people, it helps MORE than it hurts. Like going to the dentist.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think it's hard to judge the benefits of welfare redistribution in its entirety when a whole group of individuals at the top pass the financial burden onto well-off laborers. The closest thing that comes to a fair tax system was a wealth tax, but in all the countries it was employed it never constituted much more than a few millions, and the negatives of capital flight outweighed any benefit.

[Bud Struggle]

I think it's hard to judge the benefits of welfare redistribution in its entirety when a whole group of individuals at the top pass the financial burden onto well-off laborers.

Bingo Gene...the art of really making money is not to really make any money at all.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well one possible reason could be that, while it does hurt people, it helps MORE than it hurts. Like going to the dentist.
It may be true that, while hurting the majority of individuals and helping a tiny minority, inequality provides more financial benefit to that tiny minority than the total financial loss it causes for the majority. In other words, the rich might gain more than the poor lose.

Even in that case, it is still evil.

[Self-Owner]

I am well aware of the arguments surrounding utilitarianism. You are going to have to come up with a damn good reason why we should accept inequality despite the fact it harms both society and the majority of individuals.

You may well be well acquainted with the issues regarding utilitarianism, but your very argument

1) inequality harms the majority of individuals
2) therefore inequality is morally dubious and must be justified

presupposes the utilitarian premise

3) that anything that harms the majority of individuals is morally dubious (at best) and requires, at the least, justification.

Now this premise could well be true, but the point is that it really is a utilitarian principle which disregards the reasons why people are harmed by inequality. Sure you can maintain that the reasons are irrelevant, but I disagree: if people are harmed by inequality because they are envious of those who have more than them, say, then I don't see why this 'harm' should be given any moral weight at all.

And at any rate, I'm not so sure that inequality does have such bad effects.


It is no good saying that it is wrong to take from people who have earned money and give it to those who haven't earned it, because that argument is best used against capitalism, a system where the very wealthy almost never earn their money but instead get it from rent or loaning money or profiting on others work or whatever else. Taking away their money and giving it to those who do work would fit your criteria for fairness better.

Given that you're a communist and I'm not, I suspect it's to be expected that we disagree about what it means for someone to rightfully earn something. If someone obtains their property via legitimate transactions which begin with a legitimate appropriation, I don't see what anyone can say against it.

[Self-Owner]

It may be true that, while hurting the majority of individuals and helping a tiny minority, inequality provides more financial benefit to that tiny minority than the total financial loss it causes for the majority. In other words, the rich might gain more than the poor lose.

Even in that case, it is still evil.

I find it hard to see why inequality in itself is such a bad thing. I mean, I don't see why it's so terrible that some people have less while others have more. Of course, if some people don't have enough, that's not ideal - but the problem then is that they don't have enough, not that they don't have enough while some others do.

To put it another way, if the living standard of everyone on the planet was increased a billion times, would inequality still be a problem? The poorest would have the quality of life of a modern day billionaire, but the rich would have more. I guess I just don't see the problem with that state of affairs. Or on the other hand, if all wealth was destroyed overnight, inequality would disappear - everyone would have the same amount, namely nothing. But do you think all of society's problems would evaporate at the same time? Like I said, I strongly thing the issue is that some people don't have enough rather than inequality per se.

[Demogorgon]

Well one possible reason could be that, while it does hurt people, it helps MORE than it hurts. Like going to the dentist.
But it doesn't, the empirical evidence suggests the complete opposite.

You just have to look at the US for instance, the states with the worst crime rates, lowest life expectancies, highest school drop out rates and so on are not the poorest states but the states with the greatest inequality. The situation bares out internationally as well. And the really striking thing is it is not only hurting the poorest, but also those right in the middle of the spectrum and even somewhat above average. Social stratification wrecks society and hurts most individuals.

The notion that inequality is good so long as it is raising everybody, or at least most people's standards of living simply ceases to apply once you get past the stage of raising people out of starvation level.

[Demogorgon]

You may well be well acquainted with the issues regarding utilitarianism, but your very argument

1) inequality harms the majority of individuals
2) therefore inequality is morally dubious and must be justified

presupposes the utilitarian premise

3) that anything that harms the majority of individuals is morally dubious (at best) and requires, at the least, justification.

Now this premise could well be true, but the point is that it really is a utilitarian principle which disregards the reasons why people are harmed by inequality. Sure you can maintain that the reasons are irrelevant, but I disagree: if people are harmed by inequality because they are envious of those who have more than them, say, then I don't see why this 'harm' should be given any moral weight at all.

And at any rate, I'm not so sure that inequality does have such bad effects.
I am not a utilitarian, but I am a consequentialist, and the effect on the world of various actions greatly concerns me. You types love talking about self interest. So can you explain to me how it is in my self interest to live in a society of high crime and drug abuse, poor education for most, little chance of being able to better myself (the more social stratification there is, the less social mobility after all) and generally greater misery just so that the rich can have even more of the money that they don't actually need?

Talking about envy is such a strawman. It does not even come into it. When lives are being wrecked by something, saying that it is morally justifiable "just because" isn't good enough. You said earlier that people would have a moral objection to wealth justification, well in fact, almost nobody does. Even those on the right support it to some extent or another. Milton Friedman put a lot of work into drawing up what he saw as a more efficient form of redistribution. The Government of Singapore, the poster child of many free-market enthusiasts, goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent social stratification, up to and including forcing the wealthy to live alongside the poor in the same apartment blocks and of course provides social welfare. If you stand up and declare the great moral principle that there should be no redistribution, nobody will agree with you. What people do have an objection to, even those on the right, is a ruined society.People don't like poverty, unemployment, misery and so on, especially when it is readily avoidable.

Given that you're a communist and I'm not, I suspect it's to be expected that we disagree about what it means for someone to rightfully earn something. If someone obtains their property via legitimate transactions which begin with a legitimate appropriation, I don't see what anyone can say against it.Plenty. They could start with the good-old fact that no property started with legitimate appropriation. Whether it was taken by force from Native Americans, Anglo-Saxons or whoever else, all property can be traced back, if you go back long enough to violence. There is an old Scottish joke about this, it lost currency about five years ago when the system was abolished, but up until then, land owners who owned vast swathes of Scotland could do as they like, more or less, including stopping people walk through their property. Anyway there is the joke of the man taking a walk through some remote woods and being stopped by a well dressed gentleman who tells him he has no right to be there.
"Why not?", says the man, "I have as much right to walk here as you do, I am disturbing nobody and causing no harm".
"Not so", replies the gentleman. "for this wood and all the land around it is my property and I wish nobody to disturb it". Undeterred the walker demands to know what right the gentleman has to claim all of this land for his own. The gentleman smiles and states:
"I inherited it from my father according to Scots law as he inherited in turn from his father. This land has been in my family for Seventeen generations." Unimpressed the walker asks who it was acquired seventeen generations ago.
"My ancestor fought for it of course, and claimed it by right of conquest and was confirmed as the rightful owner by royal charter". This time it is the walker that smiles and says:
"Very well, if it was taken like that once, it can be taken like that again, take off your jacket, I am going to fight you for this land."

Should the walker win the fight does he now have a better claim to the land than the land owner? After all, he will have acquired it in exactly the same way as the owner's family acquired it.

Even i we leave aside how the property came to belong to the owner, we can still demand to know what exactly it is that makes property transaction legitimate. Why do we tolerate property at all if it allows some to profit of of the works of others? "Just because" is really not a valid answer.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Given that you're a communist and I'm not, I suspect it's to be expected that we disagree about what it means for someone to rightfully earn something. If someone obtains their property via...
Stop right there. Before we get to the issue of legitimate vs. illegitimate ways to obtain property, you must answer a fundamental question: Why should private property exist in the first place?

Your argument just assumes that private property has a right to exist, and based on that you proceed to argue about the rightful ways to obtain such property. I deny that private property has a right to exist in the first place.


I find it hard to see why inequality in itself is such a bad thing. I mean, I don't see why it's so terrible that some people have less while others have more.
We are quickly approaching the realm of axiomatic principles here. What would you say if I made the following statement:

"I find it hard to see why tyranny or slavery in itself is such a bad thing. I mean, I don't see why it's so terrible that some people have less freedom while others have more."

You would probably object to that statement. But on what basis? Why do you value freedom? Why do you think people deserve to be free?

I value equality and I think people deserve to be equal for the exact same reasons.


To put it another way, if the living standard of everyone on the planet was increased a billion times, would inequality still be a problem? The poorest would have the quality of life of a modern day billionaire, but the rich would have more. I guess I just don't see the problem with that state of affairs. Or on the other hand, if all wealth was destroyed overnight, inequality would disappear - everyone would have the same amount, namely nothing. But do you think all of society's problems would evaporate at the same time? Like I said, I strongly thing the issue is that some people don't have enough rather than inequality per se.
The same questions can be asked about any fundamental principle, including freedom:

If we lived in a world ruled by absolute monarchs where slave ownership was commonplace, but the living standard of everyone on the planet was increased a billion times, would slavery still be a problem? Slaves would have the quality of life of a modern day billionaire, but their masters would have more. On the other hand, if all wealth was destroyed overnight, so that slave owners would no longer have the tools, money and weapons required to keep their slaves under control, slavery would disappear. Everyone would be free, but starving. Would you want such freedom?

Fortunately for us, both your scenarios and mine are absurd. The living standard of everyone on the planet will not increase a billion times any time soon, and humanity's wealth will not all vanish overnight.

[Tungsten]

There is talk here of economics only seeking to give the cost of any given policy. But it simply isn't true. That might be the case in a perfect world, but in the real world we all have our political biases and those of us with some degree of knowledge of economics are no exception.

Such as your belief that there are hundreds of Marxists economics professors in academia who presumably believe that the labour theory of value is true.

The Austrian school isn't perfect by any means, but it's a damn sight more credible than the LTV.


You are going to have to come up with a damn good reason why we should accept inequality despite the fact it harms both society and the majority of individuals.

It harms the majority? In what way? Not benefitting doesn't mean harming.


It is no good saying that it is wrong to take from people who have earned money and give it to those who haven't earned it, because that argument is best used against capitalism, a system where the very wealthy almost never earn their money but instead get it from rent or loaning money or profiting on others work or whatever else.
Which you could argue, is a form of "earning". In order to loan money, for instance, one can't spend it while it's being loaned. Asking for a free lunch can't be considered earning in any form.


You just have to look at the US for instance, the states with the worst crime rates, lowest life expectancies, highest school drop out rates and so on are not the poorest states but the states with the greatest inequality.

You make it sound like inequality is the cause and not the effect.

"I'm fed up with all this inequality. That does it, I'm dropping out of high school."

:laugh:


I am not a utilitarian, but I am a consequentialist, and the effect on the world of various actions greatly concerns me.

You sound like a Marxist, not a consequentalist. The Marxist-consequenalists dissappeared along with the Soviet Union.


So can you explain to me how it is in my self interest to live in a society of high crime and drug abuse, poor education for most, little chance of being able to better myself (the more social stratification there is, the less social mobility after all) and generally greater misery just so that the rich can have even more of the money that they don't actually need?

And here was me thinking that peer pressure and stupidity was the cause of drug abuse. You're going to have difficulty pinning that on some ill-defined social elite.

Crap education is caused by crap teachers and a crap, ideologically-driven curriculum that considers the welfare of drowning polar bears more important than the ability to read. You're better off being homeschooled nowadays, anyway.


Plenty. They could start with the good-old fact that no property started with legitimate appropriation.
I'm sure the people in China having their homes demolished to make room for the olympic stadium were given a similar excuse.


Whether it was taken by force from Native Americans, Anglo-Saxons or whoever else, all property can be traced back, if you go back long enough to violence.
Not quite. There would have been a time where no one would have owned a particular piece of land. When hunter-gatherers became farmers, land was required and the investment had to be protected from people who just wanted to take it from them. Just because violence was used to protect it doesn't mean that it was used to acquire it.

Not that this has and relevence to the present day. Where I live, we don't generally invade other people's houses and work/money is the method most people use to aquire property, goods and services.


Even i we leave aside how the property came to belong to the owner, we can still demand to know what exactly it is that makes property transaction legitimate. Why do we tolerate property at all if it allows some to profit of of the works of others? "Just because" is really not a valid answer.

Next post...

------


Stop right there. Before we get to the issue of legitimate vs. illegitimate ways to obtain property, you must answer a fundamental question: Why should private property exist in the first place?

Your argument just assumes that private property has a right to exist, and based on that you proceed to argue about the rightful ways to obtain such property. I deny that private property has a right to exist in the first place.

Because there's a limited supply of property and the problems associated with not having property rights result in arguments over its control/use and ultimately, warfare. Occasionally, it still happens today.

"Cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind.


"I find it hard to see why tyranny or slavery in itself is such a bad thing. I mean, I don't see why it's so terrible that some people have less freedom while others have more."

You would probably object to that statement. But on what basis? Why do you value freedom? Why do you think people deserve to be free?

I value equality and I think people deserve to be equal for the exact same reasons.
The fly in the ointment is that political freedom and (economic) equality generally aren't linked. Inequality derives from different people making different decisions with different results. Equality derives from a society where everyone is forced to do the same thing, or where weath redistribution is carried out universally. The ability to demand wealth off others gives some people more political power than others. It makes no difference if it's a king demanding money from his subjects or some scrounger demanding money from the taxpayer.

[Demogorgon]

Such as your belief that there are hundreds of Marxists economics professors in academia who presumably believe that the labour theory of value is true.

The Austrian school isn't perfect by any means, but it's a damn sight more credible than the LTV.

Except for that unfortunate fact that the Austrian school is completely marginal, with less than two hundred adherants in academia and extreme difficulty even getting published in journals, whereas the Marxian school has representatives in the majority of academic institutions.

The reason for this is quite simple, the Marxian school accepts mathematics and empirical evidence. The Austrian school's refusal to do so makes it utterly irrelevant.


It harms the majority? In what way? Not benefitting doesn't mean harming.

I already explained. Lower life expectancy, poorer education, higher crime etc. Just because this is not convenient to you, it does not mean it is not true.

Which you could argue, is a form of "earning". In order to loan money, for instance, one can't spend it while it's being loaned. Asking for a free lunch can't be considered earning in any form.

Well you could try if it weren't for the fact that most loaned money only comes into existence when it is loaned out. You are aware of how the fractional reserve system works, I take it?


You make it sound like inequality is the cause and not the effect.

"I'm fed up with all this inequality. That does it, I'm dropping out of high school."

:laugh:

Perhaps if you had an ounce of sophistication you would notice that where there is increased inequality, there is inferior education and less chance of social mobility. The motivation to stay in school deteriorates rapidly. Have you ever worked with kids who left school at 16? On average they are no less intelligent than the ones who stayed on. They just come from poorer backgrounds. They can't see the point of wasting two years of earning potential to kick around a shit, bully infested school.


You sound like a Marxist, not a consequentalist. The Marxist-consequenalists dissappeared along with the Soviet Union.

I see. The fact that this is utterly untrue presumably doesn't deter you?


And here was me thinking that peer pressure and stupidity was the cause of drug abuse. You're going to have difficulty pinning that on some ill-defined social elite.I didn't blame it on a social elite. I blamed it on social stratification. Because of your refusal to accept that problems have a cause outside of the person affected, you have to insist that people in unequal societies are naturally inferior to others. You will have a hard job proving that.


Crap education is caused by crap teachers and a crap, ideologically-driven curriculum that considers the welfare of drowning polar bears more important than the ability to read. You're better off being homeschooled nowadays, anyway.
A right wing slogan is an excellent substitute for a decent argument, isn't it?

Perhaps not. Leaving aside the fact that your assertion in no way reflects modern schooling anyway (and as for home schooling, I know your ideology makes it seem desirable to keep children from their peers in the hope they become anti-social enough to adopt your political ideology, but most of us disagree), the countries with less inequality tend to have what you would call more "politically correct" schooling, yet they have the highest literacy rates. Explain that one away if you would.

Right wingers like yourself sometimes cry that if only we returned to learning by rote, everything would be better. That might be true if it weren't for the fact that learning by rote simply shoves in facts without allowing for any understanding of them and does not allow for the development of critical thinking. Again I know that suits your political ideology, but again most of us disagree.


I'm sure the people in China having their homes demolished to make room for the olympic stadium were given a similar excuse.
They were probably just told if they complained they would go to jail. But nonetheless, what s your point? Most of those homes were rented rather than owned anyway. According to your ideology (not mine) it was perfectly acceptable for the property owner to evict them.


Not quite. There would have been a time where no one would have owned a particular piece of land. When hunter-gatherers became farmers, land was required and the investment had to be protected from people who just wanted to take it from them. Just because violence was used to protect it doesn't mean that it was used to acquire it.Yes but it will have been taken off of those people by violence. There might be some very remote tribal areas in Africa and South America where ownership can be traced back to the original cultivators of the land (but as such places don't recognise private property anyway, it doesn't help your argument), everywhere else property was taken by force at one point or another. Often by force.

Of course that isn't what bothers you at all, you just like there being a property owning elite. I was struck by your ilk's response to the land acquisition in Zimbabwe over the last few years. That policy was appallingly implemented, but that isn't your complaint Rather you cry about the poor property owners who have lost their property. What we don't hear anything about is the fact that many of these property owners acquired their property as recently as the Seventies by force when it was taken by force from black title holders during the Bush War and sold to white farmers at fire slae prices. Many of these black title holders are still alive. Yet we hear not a word about them, I wonder why?


Not that this has and relevence to the present day. Where I live, we don't generally invade other people's houses and work/money is the method most people use to aquire property, goods and services.
No, because in the real world, property is whatever the law says you own. However there is an argument being made here that property is in fact what was justly acquired then properly transferred down the ages. It is necessary to show why that is wrong.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Austrian school isn't perfect by any means, but it's a damn sight more credible than the LTV.

...

Credibility point: -1.

[Tungsten]

Except for that unfortunate fact that the Austrian school is completely marginal, with less than two hundred adherants in academia and extreme difficulty even getting published in journals, whereas the Marxian school has representatives in the majority of academic institutions.

The reason for this is quite simple, the Marxian school accepts mathematics and empirical evidence.


If the Marxian school accepted empirical evidence, then the Marxian school would have declared itself a failure and closed decades ago. Are serously defending the labour theory of value?

Marxism was supposed to blow away capitalism with its superior productive power. What happened in practice?

[quote]I already explained. Lower life expectancy, poorer education, higher crime etc. Just because this is not convenient to you, it does not mean it is not true.

No, those are not symptoms of inequality. If my neighbour has more money than I do, I do not suddenly drop dead at an earlier age or lose the ability to gain qualifications. Nor - if I'm worth anything - do I turn to crime.


Well you could try if it weren't for the fact that most loaned money only comes into existence when it is loaned out. You are aware of how the fractional reserve system works, I take it?
It has to be there before it's loaned out, unless you take a loan yourself, which defeats the object. A proper bank doesn't just hand out what it knows it isn't going to get back.


Perhaps if you had an ounce of sophistication you would notice that where there is increased inequality, there is inferior education and less chance of social mobility. The motivation to stay in school deteriorates rapidly.
Another mix up of cause and effect.


Have you ever worked with kids who left school at 16? On average they are no less intelligent than the ones who stayed on. They just come from poorer backgrounds.
This may have been true fifty years ago, when the pressure was simply to leave school to earn money, but lack of social mobility had little do to with it.


They can't see the point of wasting two years of earning potential to kick around a shit, bully infested school.
That's more down to the school and it's bullying policy than anything else.


I see. The fact that this is utterly untrue presumably doesn't deter you?
Well I suppose there are people who still believe in creationism, so I suppose it wouldn't be fair to say that creationism died out with Darwin either.


I didn't blame it on a social elite. I blamed it on social stratification.

And you evidence is...? Oh, is it because drug addicts are poor?

No shit, Sherlock. Unless they've got a thousand pounds coming in every day to fuel the habit, they're going to be poor, whether they're right at the bottom or not.


Because of your refusal to accept that problems have a cause outside of the person affected, you have to insist that people in unequal societies are naturally inferior to others. You will have a hard job proving that.

What, do drugs inject themselves into people? Unless someone else somehow does the injecting and you get hooked that way (unlikely), you will have to accept that taking drugs is a conscious choice, along with all the physical and economic problems associated with it. Lack of long-term thinking (a mindset which doesn't exactly go hand in hand with economic prosperity) over the consequences of drug taking isn't the fault of poverty, social mobility (or lack of), capitalism or any other system. It's the fault of the idiot taking the drugs.

There are no knee-jerk responses to poverty- any supposed poverty experienced prior to drug addiction would have weighed just as heavily on hundreds of people who didn't turn to drugs.


A right wing slogan is an excellent substitute for a decent argument, isn't it?
I don't see any slogans.

Perhaps not. Leaving aside the fact that your assertion in no way reflects modern schooling anyway
I'm afraid it does. Exposing eight year olds to drowning polar bears is going to only have one effect and has only one purpose in mind.


(and as for home schooling, I know your ideology makes it seem desirable to keep children from their peers in the hope they become anti-social enough to adopt your political ideology, but most of us disagree),
Anti-social? :laugh: Don't me laugh.

I can guarantee that calling anyone with any property a theif because "all property can be traced back to violent aquisition" will be your first step on the road to pariahdom.


the countries with less inequality tend to have what you would call more "politically correct" schooling, yet they have the highest literacy rates. Explain that one away if you would.
I never said there was a direct link between ideology and literacy. I'm sure faith schools have wonderfully high literacy rates, but that doesn't preclude them from teaching crap.


Right wingers like yourself sometimes cry that if only we returned to learning by rote, everything would be better.
Stop the disingenuous labelling. My politics transcend "left" and "right", I'm a libertarian minarchist first and a capitalist second. Secondly, I don't advocate that method of teaching and to be honest, I've met anyone who has.


That might be true if it weren't for the fact that learning by rote simply shoves in facts without allowing for any understanding of them and does not allow for the development of critical thinking.
I guess we know which method you were subjected to.


They were probably just told if they complained they would go to jail. But nonetheless, what s your point? Most of those homes were rented rather than owned anyway.
Like that would have mattered.


Of course that isn't what bothers you at all, you just like there being a property owning elite.
Stop the straw man arugments. I could just as easily start pulling out the naive cynicism card and accuse you of just wanting a free-for-all to benefit yourself. Look how socialism is going to benefit me. Only the rich will suffer. That's how the argument usually goes isn't it?


I was struck by your ilk's response to the land acquisition in Zimbabwe over the last few years. That policy was appallingly implemented, but that isn't your complaint Rather you cry about the poor property owners who have lost their property.
What struck me was how any socialist with any sense was quick to distance themselves from Mugabe. Why do you suppose that was?


What we don't hear anything about is the fact that many of these property owners acquired their property as recently as the Seventies by force when it was taken by force from black title holders during the Bush War and sold to white farmers at fire slae prices.
I don't believe that any of this bothers you. You just want to see socialism at any cost, even if it results in poverty and civil war. Do you think Zimbabwe is better off now or prior to the land-grab, Mr Consequentalism?


No, because in the real world, property is whatever the law says you own.
In the real world, you couldn't get away with a society like that. Society - even a dictatorship - would quickly collapse if it didn't punish people who unjustly aquired property and ignored those who didn't. Of course, there is usually a scapegoat minority who can be stolen from, but they're just that- a minority. Society at large must remain the same.


However there is an argument being made here that property is in fact what was justly acquired then properly transferred down the ages. It is necessary to show why that is wrong.

Many years ago, some people unjustly aquired property. Therefore, give me your house, your wallet and your labour.

Hillarious.


----------------

[quote]Credibility point: -1.

Sorry, this topic is way over your head and we don't need a claque.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Because there's a limited supply of property and the problems associated with not having property rights result in arguments over its control/use and ultimately, warfare. Occasionally, it still happens today.
Warning: You have just defended private property using a consequentialist argument. If this is truly your basis for supporting private property rights, then you must admit that they are not absolute, and they can and should be violated whenever such violations would produce better consequences than the alternative.

But besides that, your argument is also ridiculously naive. We should have private property to avoid people fighting each other over stuff? Oh please. Such fights could easily be avoided with any kind of property system, not necessarily a private one. We could have collective property and it would achieve the same effect. We could even have an Emperor of the World who owns everything on the planet, and even that could stop people fighting each other over stuff.


The fly in the ointment is that political freedom and (economic) equality generally aren't linked.
Oh really? I beg to differ. Take a look over the list of countries by income equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality).

The 10 countries with the most income equality are: Denmark, Japan, the Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Bosnia, Finland, Hungary, Ukraine and Germany.

The 10 countries with the least income equality are: Namibia, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Botswana, Bolivia, Haiti, Colombia, Paraguay, and South Africa.

Now let's see, which one of these groups do you think has more political freedom?


Inequality derives from different people making different decisions with different results.
Wrong. Inequality derives from an economic system that gives vastly different rewards to different people making different decisions with different results.


Equality derives from a society where everyone is forced to do the same thing, or where weath redistribution is carried out universally.
Wrong. Equality derives from an economic system that does NOT give vastly different rewards to different people making different decisions with different results.

Stop pretending that getting rich "just happens." It doesn't. The same decisions that make you rich in one economic system don't have any impact on your wealth in another system.

[Demogorgon]

If the Marxian school accepted empirical evidence, then the Marxian school would have declared itself a failure and closed decades ago. Are serously defending the labour theory of value?

Marxism was supposed to blow away capitalism with its superior productive power. What happened in practice?
Can you prove the Labour Theory of Value wrong? Do you understand it? Do you understand marginalist theories of value? I suspect the answer to all three of these questions is "no", come back when you can do better.


No, those are not symptoms of inequality. If my neighbour has more money than I do, I do not suddenly drop dead at an earlier age or lose the ability to gain qualifications. Nor - if I'm worth anything - do I turn to crime.

Strawman. It has been demonstrated over and over that inequality causes all of the things I listed. The fact that this fact does not suit you does not make it untrue.

It has to be there before it's loaned out, unless you take a loan yourself, which defeats the object. A proper bank doesn't just hand out what it knows it isn't going to get back.
Your lack of knowledge of how the system of lending works calls into question your already shaky claim to understand economics. Banks operate by lending far more than they have. The only other forms of lenders that make their money through such activity are the loansharks that infest some poorer neighbourhoods and I hope you are not defending them!


This may have been true fifty years ago, when the pressure was simply to leave school to earn money, but lack of social mobility had little do to with it.Nope, still true now. Again, the fact that it does not suit you will not change it.


That's more down to the school and it's bullying policy than anything else.
Some schools with bullying problems have excellent bullying policies. The thing is that you can't get rid of bullying by reacting to it. Kids who bully (adults too probably) tend to have low self esteem and unhappy backgrounds, something in itself that often traces its routes to poverty. That is why schools in poorer areas almost invariably have worse bullying problems.


Well I suppose there are people who still believe in creationism, so I suppose it wouldn't be fair to say that creationism died out with Darwin either.

Or that Austrian economics died out eighty years ago?

Look, we are all ultimately consequentialists. You have made large numbers of consequentialist arguments in this thread alone. I just admit it.


And you evidence is...? Oh, is it because drug addicts are poor?

No shit, Sherlock. Unless they've got a thousand pounds coming in every day to fuel the habit, they're going to be poor, whether they're right at the bottom or not.
How about you look at the income of such people before they became addicted to drugs?


What, do drugs inject themselves into people? Unless someone else somehow does the injecting and you get hooked that way (unlikely), you will have to accept that taking drugs is a conscious choice, along with all the physical and economic problems associated with it. Lack of long-term thinking (a mindset which doesn't exactly go hand in hand with economic prosperity) over the consequences of drug taking isn't the fault of poverty, social mobility (or lack of), capitalism or any other system. It's the fault of the idiot taking the drugs.Taking a drug in the first place is obviously a choice. I took alcohol as recently as yesterday for instance, and that was definitely a free choice. But how about social conditions leading to increased use? Leading to use of different drugs? Leading to tendencies likely to increase addiction risk? I know you think the world is nothing but the blackest of blacks and the whitest of whites, but it is a tad more complicated.


I'm afraid it does. Exposing eight year olds to drowning polar bears is going to only have one effect and has only one purpose in mind.
Presumably you would prefer them to be exposed to the dicks of CEOs so they can learn to suck them?

Look, children are taught about environmental issues in school, just as they are taught a whole host of things. But to say that school's primary purpose is political indoctrination is absurd.


Anti-social? :laugh: Don't me laugh.

I can guarantee that calling anyone with any property a theif because "all property can be traced back to violent aquisition" will be your first step on the road to pariahdom.Really? I tend to find it causes no problems. A lot of people agree with me and those that don't at least find me interesting. The anti-social pricks that harp on about how the market will solve everything and that the poor deserve no help and so on tend to be the ones who spend most of their time on their own. Let's face it, the "Libertarian" demographic are not known to be the most social of people. With the possible exception of the technocrats, it must be the geekiest of all political outlooks.


I never said there was a direct link between ideology and literacy. I'm sure faith schools have wonderfully high literacy rates, but that doesn't preclude them from teaching crap.

So in fact the supposed ideology behind schooling is not the cause of educational problems? I am not normally one to defend the current education system because it has many many flaws, but given that educational standards are at the highest they have ever been, it is safe to say that it is at least better than what came before. Tell me though, what aspect(s) of teaching do you think are responsible for current problems and why? Note that I want real aspects of teaching, not claims you read in the Daily Mail.


Stop the disingenuous labelling. My politics transcend "left" and "right", I'm a libertarian minarchist first and a capitalist second.
Extreme right wing in other words

Secondly, I don't advocate that method of teaching and to be honest, I've met anyone who has.
What method do you advocate then? Something tells me it is going to be whatever their parents want for the rich kids and nothing for the poor kids.


I guess we know which method you were subjected to.
Yup, other than my times tables I was never subjected to any learning by rote actually.


What struck me was how any socialist with any sense was quick to distance themselves from Mugabe. Why do you suppose that was?

I don't believe that any of this bothers you. You just want to see socialism at any cost, even if it results in poverty and civil war. Do you think Zimbabwe is better off now or prior to the land-grab, Mr Consequentalism?

If you think anything I wrote was a defence of Mugabe, you are even stupider than I thought. Did I not say that while land redistribution was sorely needed in Zimbabwe, Mugabe went completely the wrong way about it? Rather what I was saying is that those who cry the loudest about it never raise a word for the black title holders who lost their lands in the sixties and seventies. Why do you think that is?


Many years ago, some people unjustly aquired property. Therefore, give me your house, your wallet and your labour.

Hillarious.

If you can point me to anywhere that I said that I will personally fellate the CEO of your choice.

What I said was that the argument brought up by Self-Owner (most often associated with Nozick) in this thread was wrong for this reason. The argument I made is not that property is wrong for this reason, but that his particular argument was wrong.

[Self-Owner]

Can you prove the Labour Theory of Value wrong? Do you understand it? Do you understand marginalist theories of value? I suspect the answer to all three of these questions is "no", come back when you can do better.

I don't speak for anyone else, but I do. If you want to debate the LTV, let's do it in another thread - needless to say though, I don't think it's right.



Strawman. It has been demonstrated over and over that inequality causes all of the things I listed. The fact that this fact does not suit you does not make it untrue. Your lack of knowledge of how the system of lending works calls into question your already shaky claim to understand economics. Banks operate by lending far more than they have. The only other forms of lenders that make their money through such activity are the loansharks that infest some poorer neighbourhoods and I hope you are not defending them!

Has it really been demonstrated? I agree that there may well be a causal link between people being absolutely poor and crime, but is it really inequality that's causing it? Carry out my couple of thought experiments: if everyone's income was increased a billion times so that even the poorest had the quality of life of a modern billionaire, there would still be (just as much) inequality, but do you think there would still be such levels of crime? And if everyone's stuff was taken away so that they were all left with the level of the poorest, there would be complete equality but do you think crime would vanish? I don't, and I can't believe for a second that you would, which leads me to believe that it really is poverty that influences the crime, rather than inequality.

And, incidentally, I do defend the loan sharks: if someone is really in desperate need of money at extremely short notice, let them! If someone has the choice between A, B or C then eliminating C is not going to make them better off, even by consequentialist standards.


Or that Austrian economics died out eighty years ago?

This is a stupid argument to get into. Can we debate ideas, rather than their popularity?



Look, children are taught about environmental issues in school, just as they are taught a whole host of things. But to say that school's primary purpose is political indoctrination is absurd.

This criticism doesn't only just come from libertarians, I hope you realize: there's a strong Marxist tradition of it, from historians like E.P. Thompson and co.



What I said was that the argument brought up by Self-Owner (most often associated with Nozick) in this thread was wrong for this reason. The argument I made is not that property is wrong for this reason, but that his particular argument was wrong.

Imagine we had a one time only, one off redistribution of all the stuff in the world so that everyone had an equal amount - to make up for the bloodied history of most property, so to speak. Would that change your mind? Because I think your problem is not the fact that real property has bloody roots, but that it ever existed in the first place. And Nozick's argument certainly challenges that.

[Self-Owner]

Stop right there. Before we get to the issue of legitimate vs. illegitimate ways to obtain property, you must answer a fundamental question: Why should private property exist in the first place?

Your argument just assumes that private property has a right to exist, and based on that you proceed to argue about the rightful ways to obtain such property. I deny that private property has a right to exist in the first place.

I'd argue that in order for self-ownership to be a) useful and b) not infringed, it requires the ability to appropriate previously unowned parts of the world. Failing this, consequentialist justifications (a clear and unambiguous system of private property makes people better off than the alternatives - tragedy of the commons, etc) will do me just fine. There's plenty more I can say on the matter if you like.

But the question can be turned right back at you: if I require a good justification of private property, surely you need to justify why anything should be collectively owned too (rather than, say, unowned or just privately owned) - If I was to deny that communal property has a right to exist, what could you say?




"I find it hard to see why tyranny or slavery in itself is such a bad thing. I mean, I don't see why it's so terrible that some people have less freedom while others have more."

You would probably object to that statement. But on what basis? Why do you value freedom? Why do you think people deserve to be free?

I agree, we do seem to be getting down to the foundational bedrock of our moral systems. It's not an easy problem to give morality foundations, as anyone who has ever tried knows. Having said this though, I think that there are still ways of testing out why we think certain things are important, and I believe inequality is demonstrably one of the things we can eliminate.



If we lived in a world ruled by absolute monarchs where slave ownership was commonplace, but the living standard of everyone on the planet was increased a billion times, would slavery still be a problem? Slaves would have the quality of life of a modern day billionaire, but their masters would have more. On the other hand, if all wealth was destroyed overnight, so that slave owners would no longer have the tools, money and weapons required to keep their slaves under control, slavery would disappear. Everyone would be free, but starving. Would you want such freedom?

I guess this just illustrates why it would be foolish to insist on lexical priority of one value or another. But the point still stands that inequality does not seem to be the problem, merely that poverty does. I don't necessarily disagree with that. There is some respect, though, in which the situation where people are free but starving is better than the one where they are rich but enslaved: I simply can't see the appeal of the version where everyone is equally poor though. Have a look at http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/equality.htm , he explains a version of the point pretty well.


Fortunately for us, both your scenarios and mine are absurd. The living standard of everyone on the planet will not increase a billion times any time soon, and humanity's wealth will not all vanish overnight.

Agreed, but scenarios like this are a good way of testing intuitions about stuff.

[Demogorgon]

I don't speak for anyone else, but I do. If you want to debate the LTV, let's do it in another thread - needless to say though, I don't think it's right.

I'm sure you do understand it. But I was talking in frustration to Tungsten, whom in my several years here, has demonstrated alevel of unerstanding little greater than how to press, the "post reply" button, but still feels the need to make grand statements.


Has it really been demonstrated? I agree that there may well be a causal link between people being absolutely poor and crime, but is it really inequality that's causing it? Carry out my couple of thought experiments: if everyone's income was increased a billion times so that even the poorest had the quality of life of a modern billionaire, there would still be (just as much) inequality, but do you think there would still be such levels of crime? And if everyone's stuff was taken away so that they were all left with the level of the poorest, there would be complete equality but do you think crime would vanish? I don't, and I can't believe for a second that you would, which leads me to believe that it really is poverty that influences the crime, rather than inequality.Yes, I think it is inequality that is the primary factor. The evidence for this is that the parts of the world (or eve individual countries) that have the worst crime rates are the most unequal parts, not the poorest. Don't get me wrong, mind you, I am not denying that poverty is not a cause. Just that inequality is a bigger one. Don't forget that once you can feed yourself and have adequate housing and clothing (of course there are around two billion people that still don't have that/i]) poverty becomes a relative thing. I mean my standard of living is well above average on a worldwide basis, but below average, but hardly awful, on a Western basis. A hundred years from now, the standard of iving a enjoy now will probably be considered awful, whereas a hundred years ago, I would be considered very well off.

As for your thought experiments, if everybody's standard of living was multiplied by a billion, we would all have more than we were able to consume and so would be de facto equal, so it is a moot point. To tone down the question though, if everybody's standard of living was increased by a hundred, crime would certainly go up. There was an interesting study by Indian sociologists who visited Glasgow who noted that the standard of living enjoyed by poor people in Glasgow would be considered reasonably well to do in England, but that people with that standard of living in Glasgow were obviously worse off than those with the same standard in India because they were at the bottom of the pile. Te sense of hopelessness that the Indian sociologists found, took them aback somewhat. They had expected Scotland, which is of course, one of the world's wealthiest countries to have quite a content poor, because they all had what were considered luxuary items in India, televisions, washing machines etc, but it simply wasn't the case.

As for your other scenario, if everybody was reduced to nothing, yes crime would go down. Not that I am suggesting for a moment that such a situation would be desirable, but as the remote tribes in Africa and South America that live on effectively nothing, don't have much problem with behaviour we would consider to be crime, I think it is safe to say that such a situation would at least reduce crime.


And, incidentally, I do defend the loan sharks: if someone is really in desperate need of money at extremely short notice, let them! If someone has the choice between A, B or C then eliminating C is not going to make them better off, even by consequentialist standards.
Perhaps we are having a tower of babel moment, but I was not merely referring to the banks and credit institutions that charge extortionate interest (whom I also despise of course), but the money lenders who lend out a hundred pounds and come back a few weeks later demanding twenty thousand and kneecap anybody who is unable to pay up. I find it hard to believe that you would defend them.


This criticism doesn't only just come from libertarians, I hope you realize: there's a strong Marxist tradition of it, from historians like E.P. Thompson and co.
Indeed, I have my problems with modern schooling, don't get me wrong, but the talk of schools being "politically correct indoctrination camps" is simply absurd. I have as little patience for it as I do for the teenagers on the main board who insist that schools are bourgeoisie tools of oppression. Education could be a hell of a lot better, not least in those parts of the world where they practically spend more time testing than teaching, but as a whole, it could be a hell of a lot worse.


Imagine we had a one time only, one off redistribution of all the stuff in the world so that everyone had an equal amount - to make up for the bloodied history of most property, so to speak. Would that change your mind? Because I think your problem is not the fact that real property has bloody roots, but that it ever existed in the first place. And Nozick's argument certainly challenges [I]that.
I would have a problem with it, I think, though for different reasons. There are some left wing schools of thought that advocate giving everybody a roughly equal amount of property to try and fix the problem, but I disagree with them. Nonetheless such a situation is never going to happen, we have the property system we have and can only discuss whether it is just or not and if not, what makes a good alternative. You could suggest a one-off redistribution as a solution, though I don't actually think you would support it, but I do not think that would work.

My objection to property perhaps primarily comes down of course to the fact that it allows some people to start so far ahead of others and prevents many people from ever having much chance in life. Is that just or not? That is the question to be answered. Questions of what it would be like if we had equal amounts of property are intellectually interesting, but not terribly relevent to the real world.

As an aside, Nozick himself later considered many of his views on property to be mistaken and attempted to fix them by suggesting that wealth be redistributed on a generational basis through inheritance tax. Whether or not he is right or not is another matter, but it does show that even Libertarians obsessed with property ultimately have to favour some form of redistribution if their theory is to be satisfactory in the real world.

[Green Dragon]

I am not a utilitarian, but I am a consequentialist, and the effect on the world of various actions greatly concerns me. You types love talking about self interest. So can you explain to me how it is in my self interest to live in a society of high crime and drug abuse, poor education for most, little chance of being able to better myself (the more social stratification there is, the less social mobility after all) and generally greater misery just so that the rich can have even more of the money that they don't actually need?

Talking about envy is such a strawman. It does not even come into it. When lives are being wrecked by something, saying that it is morally justifiable "just because" isn't good enough. You said earlier that people would have a moral objection to wealth justification, well in fact, almost nobody does. Even those on the right support it to some extent or another. Milton Friedman put a lot of work into drawing up what he saw as a more efficient form of redistribution. The Government of Singapore, the poster child of many free-market enthusiasts, goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent social stratification, up to and including forcing the wealthy to live alongside the poor in the same apartment blocks and of course provides social welfare. If you stand up and declare the great moral principle that there should be no redistribution, nobody will agree with you. What people do have an objection to, even those on the right, is a ruined society.People don't like poverty, unemployment, misery and so on, especially when it is readily avoidable.Plenty. They could start with the good-old fact that no property started with legitimate appropriation. Whether it was taken by force from Native Americans, Anglo-Saxons or whoever else, all property can be traced back, if you go back long enough to violence. There is an old Scottish joke about this, it lost currency about five years ago when the system was abolished, but up until then, land owners who owned vast swathes of Scotland could do as they like, more or less, including stopping people walk through their property. Anyway there is the joke of the man taking a walk through some remote woods and being stopped by a well dressed gentleman who tells him he has no right to be there.
"Why not?", says the man, "I have as much right to walk here as you do, I am disturbing nobody and causing no harm".
"Not so", replies the gentleman. "for this wood and all the land around it is my property and I wish nobody to disturb it". Undeterred the walker demands to know what right the gentleman has to claim all of this land for his own. The gentleman smiles and states:
"I inherited it from my father according to Scots law as he inherited in turn from his father. This land has been in my family for Seventeen generations." Unimpressed the walker asks who it was acquired seventeen generations ago.
"My ancestor fought for it of course, and claimed it by right of conquest and was confirmed as the rightful owner by royal charter". This time it is the walker that smiles and says:
"Very well, if it was taken like that once, it can be taken like that again, take off your jacket, I am going to fight you for this land."

Should the walker win the fight does he now have a better claim to the land than the land owner? After all, he will have acquired it in exactly the same way as the owner's family acquired it.

Even i we leave aside how the property came to belong to the owner, we can still demand to know what exactly it is that makes property transaction legitimate. Why do we tolerate property at all if it allows some to profit of of the works of others? "Just because" is really not a valid answer.

It would seem that that old scottish joke demonstrates the problem- that fellow out strolling through the woods has done nothing to maintain those woods. Yet the claim is being made he has the same right to it as the fellow who has.

[Tungsten]

Warning: You have just defended private property using a consequentialist argument.
Sounded more like a utilitarian argument. That's just one of the many ways I could defend capitalism.


But besides that, your argument is also ridiculously naive. We should have private property to avoid people fighting each other over stuff? Oh please. Such fights could easily be avoided with any kind of property system, not necessarily a private one.
Show me one example of this working that involves more than a dozen people and I might buy it.


We could have collective property and it would achieve the same effect.
Collective property, which is to say, no property. Who gets priority over the use of such property? How is the verdict reached and enforced? This is the problems start.


We could even have an Emperor of the World who owns everything on the planet, and even that could stop people fighting each other over stuff.
That creates pretty much the same problem as collective property.


Oh really? I beg to differ. Take a look over the list of countries by income equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality).

The 10 countries with the most income equality are: Denmark, Japan, the Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Bosnia, Finland, Hungary, Ukraine and Germany.

This is a bit of a hash. The richest people on earth are usually found in America. It's hard to compare that, economically or politically to Namibia.



The 10 countries with the least income equality are: Namibia, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Botswana, Bolivia, Haiti, Colombia, Paraguay, and South Africa.

Now let's see, which one of these groups do you think has more political freedom?

Let's take a closer look at the statistics and see what we come up with.

According to the list, Ethiopia and a whole host of other dodgy countries, including Pakistan (under a military dictatorship at the time the statistics were taken) have greater income equality, and presumably, greater political freedom than:

The Netherlands, South Korea, Canada, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, The UK and the US.

Do you get it? No link.


Wrong. Inequality derives from an economic system that gives vastly different rewards to different people making different decisions with different results.
Same thing. What do you think drives an economic system, if not people? If they're free to pursue their own preferences, what's the problem?

----------------


Can you prove the Labour Theory of Value wrong?

Not my job. It's up to you to prove it right. So far, things aren't looking too rosy.


Strawman. It has been demonstrated over and over that inequality causes all of the things I listed. The fact that this fact does not suit you does not make it untrue.

Don't provide any evidence of these supposed demonstrations. Mere assertions will do.


Your lack of knowledge of how the system of lending works calls into question your already shaky claim to understand economics. Banks operate by lending far more than they have.
The do nowadays, and it's fucking things up. Perhaps they shouldn't. Is it necessary for them to do so? No.


How about you look at the income of such people before they became addicted to drugs?

It doesn't follow, as I've explained. Drug taking is rife amongst the rich anyway.


Taking a drug in the first place is obviously a choice. I took alcohol as recently as yesterday for instance, and that was definitely a free choice. But how about social conditions leading to increased use? Leading to use of different drugs?
Why would it? Does poverty cause loss of common sense?

"I'm poor, so let's take drugs and get even poorer. Yeah, that'll solve my problems for sure!"


Presumably you would prefer them to be exposed to the dicks of CEOs so they can learn to suck them?
I wouldn't want that either, for the same reason. It's actually illegal in the UK to politically or religiously indoctrinate children in school.


If you think anything I wrote was a defence of Mugabe, you are even stupider than I thought.
You condemn his methodology, but not his ideology. They're both as important, and they're both causing problems.

Did I not say that while land redistribution was sorely needed in Zimbabwe, Mugabe went completely the wrong way about it?
Damn right, he should have killed twice as many white farmers!

Rather what I was saying is that those who cry the loudest about it never raise a word for the black title holders who lost their lands in the sixties and seventies. Why do you think that is?
I don't advocate stealing land, so count me out. Anyone who shares my opinions and does, doesn't have the full facts.


If you can point me to anywhere that I said that I will personally fellate the CEO of your choice.

That's ultimately what's going to happen, though, isn't it?

And what the hell is it with you and fellatio?

[Demogorgon]

According to the list, Ethiopia and a whole host of other dodgy countries, including Pakistan (under a military dictatorship at the time the statistics were taken) have greater income equality, and presumably, greater political freedom than:

The Netherlands, South Korea, Canada, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, The UK and the US.
Not to go through a long comparison, but given the GINI coefficient of Canada is 0.315 and the same for Ethiopia is 0.4 at the most Conservative estimate (ignoring the fact that most income amongst the very rich is hidden and further that the wealth gap is far wider again), it would appear that you are talking nonsense


Not my job. It's up to you to prove it right. So far, things aren't looking too rosy.
The question was whether you understood what you were talking about or not.


The do nowadays, and it's fucking things up. Perhaps they shouldn't. Is it necessary for them to do so? No.
Given that they have operated that way for as long as they have existed, it seems to me quite likely that they do. There is certainly little profit in long term lending without the fractional reserve system short of charging outrageous interest.

At any rate your suggestion that they shouldn't ties in rather awkwardly with what you said during the course of our last little chat. You were making your usual silly claim that the gold standard would be better and I was pointing out that it was ridiculously unstable and asked you if you would like to see it stabilised through the rather drastic step of banning fiduciary money. You said you wouldn't and that such money should be allowed. Now this implies one of two things to me, either you support the fractional reserve system when it suits you and are terribly inconsistent or you don't know what fiduciary money is.


It doesn't follow, as I've explained. Drug taking is rife amongst the rich anyway.
Cocaine use certainly is, but looking at drug use as a whole, which demographic takes the most (legal drugs included incidentally)?

Again though, note that I am only partially linking drug use to poverty, my primary link is to that of inequality. Social stratification does not merely hurt those at the very bottom.


Why would it? Does poverty cause loss of common sense?
No but social stratification does lead to generally more reckless behaviour.
"

I wouldn't want that either, for the same reason. It's actually illegal in the UK to politically or religiously indoctrinate children in school.
No it isn't, hence the existence of religious schools.

That aside, you still haven't explained what you do support.


You condemn his methodology, but not his ideology. They're both as important, and they're both causing problems.If supporting land redistribution in Zimbabwe means I share Mugabe's ideology, then most of the world supports his ideology. Almost nobody denies the need for land reform. Hell, even the White farmer's groups support land redistribution, they just want it done at a slower (and less violent) pace.

The whole situation in Zimbabwe regarding white dominance was absolutely outrageous come to that. The standard of living for white people was amongst the highest in the world whereas for black people it was desperately low. Try and find a way to explain that one away.


Damn right, he should have killed twice as many white farmers!
No he shouldn't have. He should have nationalised the land and spread it out amongst the people as a whole. He didn't of course. He just seized land (owned by both blacks and whites incidentally though we don't here about the black owners very often for some reason) and gave it to his cronies (again both black and white though there is a sudden silence when discussion turns to the white ones). I have no reason to support that.

Mugabe sure as hell isn't doing me any favours incidentally. Stops me going there and seeing where the family used to live, stops my mother visiting her place of birth, has meant a whole bunch of relatives have had to relocate to South Africa and so on. I know perfectly well the suffering Mugabe has caused. But to deny the need for land redistribution is simply insane.

I don't advocate stealing land, so count me out. Anyone who shares my opinions and does, doesn't have the full facts.

Isn't it funny we never hear about it though? Mind you, would you have supported the farm seizures so long as the black people Mugabe gave the land to were those who had had it forty years or so ago?


That's ultimately what's going to happen, though, isn't it?

No my argument against property is completely different. You see I am not stuck in the intellectual tunnel that sees property as legitimate so long as it has been acquired and exchanged through legitimate means. I am simply trying to show those who do believe it that it is ridiculous in practice because the actual origins of property have nothing to do with that.