From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2001 - 09:43:37 MDT
These discussions are far to simplistic. They discuss
capitalism and economics in terms of the way the world was at
the time of Atlas Shrugged. They do not account for a
technological abundance that will go off the scale as we near
singularity, nor for the real riches switching to an almost
infinitely divisible medium (information), nor for more and more
classes of people becoming economically superfluous as
technology advances. They also do not account for the
potential of technology both for a level of liberation from
scarcity (which traditional economics is based on) on the one
hand, and for a system of totalitarian control by the few that
makes all previous attempts look like a free society in
comparison on the other.
- samantha
Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> I was trying to disengage from this discussion, but...:/
>
> On Thursday, July 19, 2001 11:52 PM J. R. Molloy jr@shasta.com wrote:
> > > However, the real reason that I oppose government confiscation
> > > of the wealth of the prudent to finance the needs of those whose
> > > lives haven't worked out for some reason, is evolutionary:
> >
> > Seems as likely to me that government confiscates the meager wealth of
> those
> > whose lives haven't worked out for some reason, and uses it to finance the
> > needs of the prudent (who have managed to figure out how to gain access to
> tax
> > dollars, viz., politicians).
>
> That depends on what you mean by prudent. If stealing is prudent, then
> successful thieves should be seen as exemplars of that virtue. Of course,
> if you judge people by how well they get along in each system, then certain
> types of people do well in a welfare state -- not necessarily the same
> people who would do well under either a free market or full socialism.
>
> You should also ask what it is that taxation and redistribution achieves
> ultimately -- e.g., what sort of changes it makes in society. More people
> will devote their efforts to trying to get at unearned wealth and less to
> other, more productive activities. (Before it can be taxed, wealth must be
> produced. The more taxes there are, the less reason there is for many
> people to produce.)
>
> I would also point out, this class of tax takers includes not only
> politicians, but, in general, those who chase after government money or
> favors. I recall in the 1990s, the Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/ came
> out with a report on corporate welfare in the US, finding that this was a
> huge part of the Federal budget. (I.e., reducing it, would reduce the
> overall budget -- and the money saved could be given back to the taxpayers.)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
> See me singlehandedly defeat pancritical rationalism at:
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:55 MST