[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
First, claiming that someone is "undeserving" is just as arbitrary and subjective as claiming that someone is "deserving", hence DS is a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe, I doubt it as I think DS can give a workable defintion. If not he is just making a mistake, its allowed.

[ QUOTE ]
He is saying that (apparently some) people do not "deserve", i.e. they are undeserving of, that which others have voluntarily given to them. Such a position is arbitrary and subjective. Who is David Sklansky to decide who deserves what? Which brings us right back to the first point.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be unreasonable but we don't deserve to be born into an affluent society that can voluntarily give us a lot. Footballers get paid a lot today, 50 years ago they got paid very little, today's footballers are no more serving then those 50 years ago they just got lucky. they didn't do anything to bring about the state of affirs where they get paid more.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, DS has a problem with philosophers, I suspect some tongue in cheek though the absense of hi falootin makes me wonder. Still just a mistake rather than hypocracy.i
chez