Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I explained why, of course, it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you sure didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I surely did. Nyah nyah nyah.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Differences in "levels of opportunity" are the accumulated result of voluntary decisions by individual human beings.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where your born, who your parents are, etc. etc. etc.?? To quote the "philosopher" Everlast, "You know where it ends, it usually depends on where you start."

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I made it explicitly clear that it does matter, which is why the idea that everyone "deserves equal opportunity," a physical impossibility, is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. This stuff about receiving equal "opportunity" or whatever we want to call it being a physical impossibility is ridiculous,

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now show why.

[ QUOTE ]
and there probably aren't two people on this forum who can't see what sweetjazz tried to explain to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Lol. Read it again. sweetjazz conceded the point, which is why he had to move to his idea of "levels of opportunity." Which is why I shifted to a new argument that addressed his new proposal.

B) Care to make a wager?

[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest, I'm not trying to "rebutt" it because it has nothing specifically to do with what I was talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
in this case, is on record as saying that his success was not attributable to the sweat of his brow, personal exertion or developped skills but to a certain psychological profile (with regard risk aversion) that he has, that would not have been so succesful in any other time but the one in lived in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would (or should) notice if you were to look into AC that a major point it that other people don't have rights over what you produce. Redistribution schemes always rely on certain groups deciding on whose and how much money to redistribute of others (and who gets it)- despite not being any more "worthy or deserving" of their position than WB is.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Redistribution schemes always rely on certain groups deciding on whose and how much money to redistribute of others (and who gets it)- despite not being any more "worthy or deserving" of their position than WB is.

[/ QUOTE ] Who cares? This doesn't show that redistribution is unacceptable: it doesn't show that these people are any less "worthy or deserving" of their position than WB is, either.

WB said society had a "big claim" on what you are saying that WB produced. WB, of course, would not agree that he produced it; he realizes, as illustrated in that comment, that it never makes sense to try and isolate production, because everything, including the system in place to ensure things can be created and sold and the wealth to buy things, and you yourself in your current form, is made by lots and lots of people, never just one or you.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
WB, of course, would not agree that he produced it; he realizes, as illustrated in that comment, that it never makes sense to try and isolate production, because everything, including the system in place to ensure things can be created and sold and the wealth to buy things, and you yourself in your current form, is made by lots and lots of people, never just one or you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats wonderful. Except in an AC society when i drive to the store to buy an apple i have paid for my car, the gas, compensated the person who owns the road i drove on, and paid the store for the apples i bought. The money i pay for the apples goes to the people who run the store, the truck driver who shipped the apples and the farmer who produced them. Everyone in the transaction has been compensated for their input, in a manner that they agreed upon. Where do these "not less deserving" people come into play?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? This doesn't show that redistribution is unacceptable

[/ QUOTE ]

I am wearing a t-shirt. For you to take this t-shirt without it being theft you have to prove that it belongs to you, the fact that it is in my possesion makes it mine untill otherwise demonstrated.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of your post I have no desire to debate. I didn't think I was "attacking the accumulated capital that underlies the productivity of civilization". I'm not an economist, but it sounds to me like another overly simplistic sales pitch for trickle down economics.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should reread this:

[ QUOTE ]
Human beings do not fight like animals in competition to consume finite resources. Rather, their self-interest drives them to use their reason to expand the supply of goods to others, benefitting everyone. One man's gain is positively other men's gain.

Attacking the accumulated capital that underlies the productivity of civilization and provides the demand for labor, in some misguided attempt to redistribute "opportunity" in the short term must result in a geometrically compounded loss of opportunity in the long term.


[/ QUOTE ]

These two paragraphs explain why capitalism is so great and why socialist programs, although claiming to help the poor, actually harm poor people in the long run.

People always complain about CEOs making so much money while their workers are barely getting by. If a CEO gets paid $10 Million but produces $20 Million in efficiency there is a net gain for society. This includes cheaper products, more jobs, and a higher standard of living for more people. There is nothing 'trickle down' about it, wealth is created from the ground up.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
But there are planty of people who are wealthy because of the nature of the capitalist system. Options traders, baseball players, rock stars etc. Almost all of them would continue to do what they do if their salary was cut by 80% whether they liked their job or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to claim that sports stars and rockstars dont deserve their money, you are also claiming that people dont deserve to have any form of entertainment in their life. The money that these stars make is proportional to amount of enjoyment people get out of them, otherwise they wouldnt be willing to pay for it.

Entertainers increase the enjoyment people get out of life, who is David Sklansky or anyone to decide what people can spend their money on to increase their happiness? Its like saying people should only be able to eat a bare sustinance of rice and beans because thats all their bodies need and they dont deserve anything else.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You should reread this:
[ QUOTE ]
Human beings do not fight like animals in competition to consume finite resources. Rather, their self-interest drives them to use their reason to expand the supply of goods to others, benefitting everyone. One man's gain is positively other men's gain.

Attacking the accumulated capital that underlies the productivity of civilization and provides the demand for labor, in some misguided attempt to redistribute "opportunity" in the short term must result in a geometrically compounded loss of opportunity in the long term.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
These two paragraphs explain why capitalism is so great and why socialist programs, although claiming to help the poor, actually harm poor people in the long run.

People always complain about CEOs making so much money while their workers are barely getting by. If a CEO gets paid $10 Million but produces $20 Million in efficiency there is a net gain for society. This includes cheaper products, more jobs, and a higher standard of living for more people. There is nothing 'trickle down' about it, wealth is created from the ground up.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I wasn't discussing this, but it appears to me to be just a bunch of unproven assertions. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If a CEO gets paid $10 Million but produces $20 Million in efficiency there is a net gain for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not into economics, but what would be the damage to the economy if she got 9.9 mil. or 5M. Or if we told he to perform or we'd cut her balls off or. I don't see the connection between her salary and the efficiency. i see the connection between the efficiency and the economy.

keep it simple, I just want a feel for it, thanks luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a CEO gets paid $10 Million but produces $20 Million in efficiency there is a net gain for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not into economics, but what would be the damage to the economy if she got 9.9 mil. or 5M.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps she wouldn't have agreed to take the job for $9.9M.

[ QUOTE ]
Or if we told he to perform or we'd cut her balls off or.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can try. Aside from the fact that she might not perform as well (although, who knows, perhaps she'll perform better), this admits your ability to compel her to force her to do anything. Who's to say that what you decide to force people do is the most efficient allocation of resources? What is the most "efficient" (although I dislike the term) can only be ascertained through the market. How can you look around, see there is "only" 1 barber per 100 people, subjectively decide that isn't enough, and attempt to forceably "rectify" the "problem"?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the connection between her salary and the efficiency. i see the connection between the efficiency and the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The efficieny in the economy is an emergent property of competition and freedom of exchange. If you remove either one, there can be no efficiency.