Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ncg
From: ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Redistribution of Wealth & the Economy
Message-ID: <4896@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 17:17:49 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.4896
Posted: Mon Feb 18 17:17:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 05:33:25 EST
References: <326@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <utzoo.5031> <1370@dciem.UUCP> <5045@utzoo.UUCP> <480@whuxl.UUCP> <5063@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: ncg@ukc.UUCP nigel gale
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Lines: 27
Summary: 


-Of the incentive for the Rich to give to charity...

The Libertarian stance is that the Rich will  provide a sort
of social security:
a) to prevent rioting & civil war
b) to keep money in circulation
c) to feel magnanimous

Correct me if I'm wrong.

This assumes that the Rich are centrally coordinated.
Why should Rich Man A give anything to the Poorbox this month,
when he knows that most other Rich Men will do so.
Rich Man A could keep money in circulation by
a) building a new factory
b) increasing the pay of his employees
c) spending some
d) hiring a Security Force for the riot & civil war mentioned above.

Having only those Rich Men with a desire to feel Saintly propping up
the economy to the benifit of those who don't give a monkey's
seems a little strange, to me.


-Nigel Gale