Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen
You obviously have wolves on the brain...
No, I do not accept the "Wealth is like the natural abilities of a wolf..." argument.
Not to get into the "What is wealth" or "What is value" arguments of classical, neo-classical, marxist and keynsian economists, the wealth that you speak of is not wealth. Ability does not equal wealth.
Some economists say that certain birds can acquire wealth, through the building and maintenance of their ornate nests; I still think the argument is a poor one.
Strength, speed, intelligence, and agression have nothing to do with wealth.
|
What does it take to aquire "wealth"? It is either luck or ability. I think luck is insignificant, so I see a clear connection between ability and wealth.
Quote:
I agree that the wealthy members of society have a moral obligation to provide support to those less fortunate. Nothing can change that belief. I think that it comes down to my belief in a perfect society:
Create a society where you define all roles and responsibilities and all allocations of wealth and privledge before any one person is assigned to a position. You must assume that you have the same chance of being Bill Gates the billionaire or John Doe the homeless guy.
You would see a dramatic increase in social spending, if people had the risk of changing places with those who they decry as loafers and beggars. That is the society in which I want to live.
|
So, you have bees on your mind. The above is exaclty the way a bee hive operates. You are correct "social spending" is at its maximum. However, individuality is at its minimum. I would prefer to live in a pack of wolves.