Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism & Luck
Message-ID: <436@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 18:00:30 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.436
Posted: Mon Jan 21 18:00:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 07:04:52 EST
References: <272@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <547@ccice2.UUCP> <428@whuxl.UUCP> <4245@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 88

> > tim sevener (me)
> Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
> >Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives?
> >Then what is the whole point of buying insurance?  Obviously it is possible
> >to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore
> >reduce the role of luck.   
> 
> Of course!  In fact, insurance companies would play a major role in
> a libertarian society.  Individuals can and do purchase insurance
> against the trials and tribulations of an uncertain world, and do so
> freely in the context of a market economy.  This is an argument against
> government intervention, not for it.

GREAT! Then I presume those in Harlem will certainly buy insurance against
poverty! Or could it be possible that after 33% of the American people
were unemployed due to the workings of the wonderful "free enterprise system"
that they might decide that they should *ALL* shoulder the burden to
provide unemployment insurance, education, and other such collective
insurance against personal catastrophe?  Was there something wrong with
this national decision? I don't think so.
> 
> >Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is
> >who she or he happens to be born to.  
> 
> Quite true.  Should children born into wealth should be forced to
> change places with those in poorer families? Or do they have certain
> natural rights that render them immune against such claims?
> 
> >Why should those born rich be able to go through their whole lives 
> >without working at all (...)
> 
> At all?  If their wealth is not managed productively, it will disappear.
 
So you take a million dollars out of your billion and pay your
accountants, lawyers and stockbrokers to see that the river of money
doesn't dry up.  If you own enough money then the law of compound interest
makes it very easy to keep such wealth without doing a thing.
> 
> Suppose J. Paul Getty were to leave his son a billion dollars.  Doubtless
> you would perceive this as an unfair and unjust distribution of wealth,
> and would rectify it through coercive means.  But if JPG were to leave
> a billion dollars to a struggling laborer, this would be OK?  
 
No, it certainly would not be OK.  If JPG distributed his billion dollars
to 100 million laborers or those who actually do the work that sustains
the billion dollars then this would seem more fair than perpetuating
and even increasing an unequal distribution of wealth. Giving the one billion
dollars to somebody other than his son does not resolve the fundamental
problem--perpetuation of an unequal distribution of wealth and passing
on such wealth without any effort on the inheritors part, other than
crawling out of the womb.
 
I am not prescribing any specific action to solve this problem.
But I think that the inequitable distribution of wealth IS a problem
which Libertarians seem totally unwilling to address.
 
In the real world as opposed to the mythical "Libertaria" 33% of the
country was unemployed during the Great Depression. To solve this problem
people supported their government in providing assistance to these
people, who were unemployed through absolutely no fault of their own,
but simply due to the workings of the economic system.  I think that
this was (and still is) a reasonable thing to do.
  
In the real world as opposed to the mythical "Libertaria" there are
people who inherit a fortune and do nothing whatsoever to contribute
to other's welfare other than to contribute to the welfare of lawyers,
accountants and others who insure that the money keeps rolling in.
This is not to say that most of the wealthy are lazy: actually many
are very hard-working.  But it points up the injustice of a system which
allows some people to make money off of other people's labor:
how to deal with such injustice is a very complicated problem.
But it IS an injustice and it IS a problem.  Libertarians seem unwilling
to admit this.

How would Libertarians deal with the Great Depression? Pretend it didn't
exist? 
Ah, yes, that's the answer, of course it didn't exist because such
economic downturns just cannot happen in Libertaria! We have defined them
out of existence, ipso facto, TAA DAA! they no lonher exists!
Amazing what a consistent philosophy does for you!
Why, if you believe that, I'll tell you about a REAL existing society
which has no classes, no crime, indeed no social problems of any kind.
Just ask the leaders of the USSR about how their consistent system has
solved all social problems and ills......
 
where is the connection with reality????
tim sevener   whuxl!orb