Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
From: Matt Timmermans (mt0000_at_sympatico.nospam-remove.ca)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Refinish King: "Re: gas prices too high or too low?"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- In reply to: The Trucker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Reply: Les Cargill: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:14:41 -0400
"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ca7aoj0n5n@news2.newsguy.com...
> > there must be some mechanism in place to give wealth some inertia, i.e.,
> > to make it easy for wealthy people to acquire wealth, so that they can
> > stay wealthy even with their increased consumption.
>
> This conclusion is horse manure. Those that actually _earn_ wealth
> will have no problems in consuming AND staying wealthy. [...]
Yes, but it's their kids I'm worried about. As you note:
> And now for the kicker: If your kids inherit your wealth then do they
> have the right to give it to their kids? I say no.
I say yes. I would even advocate primogeniture (including girls, though
;-). The tendency for things get out of hand could be controlled with a
carefully and continually adjusted rent tax.
> They did not earn
> it and therefore do not have the same rights as you did in the deposition
> of this wealth. Others will argue that your kids have already received
> major benefit from your wealth while you are alive and that should be
> the end of it.
I'm not particularly concerned with whether they earned it or not. Some
people being born beautiful or talented seems just as "unfair" to me as some
people being born rich. I don't resent any of them.
What I'm concerned about is a whole class of human endeavour. There is a
limit to how much a person can do in his lifetime, and there are types of
projects that won't be done by consensus among individuals, or by
corporations, because they are impractical or are the products of a personal
vision.
I prefer to have a few individuals free to implement grand visions without
much regard for practical concerns, than to have all of mankind's efforts
consumed in the production of basic requirements and popular gadgets. Grand
undertakings can lift all our sprits, because we recognize them as
accomplishments of mankind.
And yes, I know this is a religious view.
-- Matt
- Next message: Refinish King: "Re: gas prices too high or too low?"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- In reply to: The Trucker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Reply: Les Cargill: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|