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!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism & Luck
Message-ID: <450@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 18:35:37 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.450
Posted: Wed Jan 23 18:35:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:29:54 EST
References: <1910@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 40

>from nrh: 
> I suspect you mean "why should a few people benefit vastly more than
> others", and I suspect you know the answer to that question: it is that
> in providing incentive to produce, our society allows choice to its
> members as to how to use the rewards they get.  The impulse is strong to
> look out for your children (and thus people inherit huge sums without
> being productive themselves) and to look out for yourself (and thus
> people assemble more wealth than they need).
 
The true question is not how to use the rewards people get, it is
how they get such rewards in the first place?  Is it fair for the
onwer of a factory to get money for nothing more than owning the factory?
What good would the factory be if there were nobody to work in it?
(note: this is about to become a moot question when factories become
so automated nobody *will* have to work in them.  How people will
then have money to buy the factories production is a problem we
are about to confront......)
>  In a society where no
> person is forced (except by contractual terms) to deal with others, this
> is not a problem (wealth tends to redistribute itself (take a look at
> early America)).  In societies where wealth is controlled by means
> unrelated to productivity or how much material good you do others,
> wealth tends to be distributed according to whatever rationale dominates
> the system.
 
"wealth tended to redistribute itself in early America": this is an
interesting proposition, however a study I have read on this subject
showed that the concentration of wealth tended to increase in several
cities (Boston, Philadelphia) according to the evidence examined.
It is true that America did present a path to property unavailable
in Europe: namely, homesteading the frontier, an option provided largely
due to the foresight of Thomas Jefferson.  One should also note that
this brilliant founding father (so often cited by Conservatives!)also
supported and campaigned for the provision that every parcel of land
homesteaded would have some land set aside for public education.
Public education: arrghhh! Such a ghastly sore in the free enterprise system!

more comments on this article to come......
 tim sevener   whuxl!orb
 "loving every minute of it!!"