hello, new here. still trying to learn :)
I agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for, as well as a lot of what i read on mises, in principle. I believe that without laws and religion most people are essentially good at the start - but i do see that life experience changes them. the problem i have - is that though i 100% believe the fewer rules and laws the better - in my opinion the majority of the problems we face in the world, are caused by greed and an extremely uneven distribution of wealth.
also, from what i have seen in the world - the people that have the most wealth got it by doing ethically questionable, if not illegal and downright unmoral things, in most cases. by no means all, but most. again - from what i see, i am open to other interpretations for sure.
look at BP for example - the gulf spill was due to greed - yet nothing will happen to bp, they will not change, because it is not legislated in any way. how is that ok? corporations only make it easier - though i see them as necessary for any large-scale change to succeed.
and look at all the homeless and the starving, in america alone. the top 2% of the country could fund food &shelters, and education courses, and never even feel the pinch. and still never have to worry about money for the rest of their or their great great great grandchildrens lives. and most likely INCREASE profits as more people have money to spend.
now i know they worked to earn that money. i don't want it for myself. I by no means have a lot but enough to live. but when such a small act of kindness could do so much good for so many people in such a grand way - yet it never happens - it gets so frustrating i just want a solution. i want the world to be a better place for everyone.
only a few "rich people" really donate, and those that do, do so with a fraction of what they could easily part with. my only conclusion is that they don't care about the rest of the world, whether they starve or not. and that is simply not ok. not when they are in such a unique position to change EVERYTHING. i think that's the big point - THEY are in the unique position, to change EVERYTHING.
i do consider redistribution to be bad - but i simply believe the state of the world without it (would be worse) and is much worse than it has to be, that makes redistribution the lesser evil.
again i am more than open to ideas. that's why i made this thread - i simply can't see any other options - but i would surely accept a better one.also this isn't just about redistribution , but any economic legislation design to slow the rate at which the rich get richer, and reverse that of the poor becoming poorer.
Hi digibucc - welcome to the Mises forums.
it gets so frustrating i just want a solution. i want the world to be a better place for everyone.
Me too, and I feel your frustration.
I have a different perspective to you on how we can help poor people. You are looking at the existing "wealth pie" and how it is distributed, and you correctly note that some people have much bigger slices than others - and that many of them have become wealthy by being unethical. But instead of trying to divide up the pie more equally, I would ask a different question: how can we make the pie bigger?
The answer to this is, obviously, to become more productive, so there is more stuff to go round. How do economies grow to become more productive? The answer to this can be found in this classic comic book: How An Economy Grows And Why It Doesn't.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
You'll start to realize that we're by no means in a free market right now. Government interference, a type of unethical greed involving theft since you're so interested in that word, has made prices skyrocket.
medicinal programs however, could make that difference
Education, as I said, you can get at the library or on Amazon. If you want to talk about healthcare, instead of wanting corrupt welfare programs that motivate people to do nothing at all, fight against the government regulating charities. It stops them from performing certain procedures. It licenses doctors and only allows a certain amount to graduate per year. Do research here.
I do see greed as a negative motive - even though good things can come of it. good things are never the destination - unless you consider a single individual having more than they could ever objectively possibly need, while at the same time millions of others die due lack of basic necessities
That's just rhetoric again to appeal to pathos. If everything was liquidated, you wouldn't be saying that. It's just that paper money doesn't seem like real property. Assume I have two televisions in my house and my neighbor has none. By that same logic I have more than I could ever need at the given time, but you wouldn't force me to give my television to my neighbor, right? Especially when you don't know if he/she is a good person.
I would like to see brian point out a few more with such a large donation
You don't think the list I sent you more than qualifies? That's only 50 people in the entire world in a 4-year span. Think about things like Mark Zuckerberg just giving away $100 million without even wanting anyone to know. These things happen all of the time. Not to mention what people would give away if the government wasn't stealing 50% of their income every year.
The walton FAMILY has donated 1.5billion - yet each member has a worth of over 20 billion. I recognize that is THEIR money. But honestly when i see what i consider so much good that can be done with it - vs it sitting in an account gaining interest for people that will never need it, never need to worry about food or shelter
You do realize that the money isn't just "sitting" in an account, right? The bank uses that money to invest, which makes money for them to hire employees and give out loans to people who may very well wish to create inventions that provide food and shelter easier. Not that food isn't provided easily as hell. If you want people to have access to cheaper food, fight the tariffs and subsidies so we can get food from other countries that will make it for less money.
I can't help but think , MORALLY, that they don't deserve it. even if technically and realistically they do.
They deserve it morally. My guess is that many of the people to whom their money would be redistributed shop frequently at WalMart because of the low prices that they continue to provide for customers. Not to mention that they provide over 2 million people with salaries each year. Would you prefer that people have jobs and buy things for themselves or that wealthy individuals have to redistribute money for no reason?
If you stay on this site long enough, you'll find that nearly every single thing is connected in weird ways. And that the government interferring in the market has done nothing but harm because, I'll say this again, we are not in a free market right now. Just so you know, with your current comments, you're probably going to get torn apart by a lot of people on here but just stay on the forums because you'll end up having that moment of clarity and it will all be worth it.
digibucc:I'm not trying to be combative - i'm just not seeing any answers. I just see each of you asking the same questions - which are perfectly valid - but it's not like I missed them. I just came to a conclusion. it seems to me you guys stop at the questions because the world is so complicated. nothing ever gets done that way, and it is not an option as far as i am concerned.
You acknowledge you are here to learn.
If you don't do some reading / studying on your own, I think you will be going around and around with forum members on a litany of issues with no progress toward understanding what they are trying to tell you.
Try this: The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality - Mises
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
I'm sorry, but "The Anticapitalist Mentality" is one giant ad hominem wrapped up as scholarly work. A tarnish on Mises' otherwise respectable record.
A wealthy/comforatble man wants to see everyone else wealthy/comfortable, but he's just jealous of his boss... as if.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I'm sorry,
Apology accepted.
haha, nice one Colbert
It is for the most part, social commentary. It's not about attacking an argument in a scientific basis as it is about making observations about society. FWIW, it's at the scholarly level of most contemporary "socialist/progressive" writings. I don't think it's fair to hold Mises to a harsher standard in comparison to other writers of today. Let the guy make some social commentary.
No doubt is about on par w many pop progressives. I just happen to be in that category he is describing, so it gets personal. I would not recommend it for anybody as a learning tool, personally.
Tho I am not anti-capitalist, I'm a capitalist-skeptic. Capitalism > Feudalism/mercantilism
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I just happen to be in that category he [Mises] is describing, so it gets personal.
After I saw your reply, I suspected I touched a nerve. I was right.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I would not recommend it for anybody as a learning tool, personally.
Since you do not recommend The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, I redouble my recommendation for anyone like the OP who is attempting to understand economics. Erroneous economics (interventionism) leads to erroneous political thinking (redistribution).
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Tho I am not anti-capitalist, I'm a capitalist-skeptic. Capitalism > Feudalism/mercantilism
Okee Dookey. So you're a skeptic, I'm not (but I used to be, in fact my understanding of economics and politics was very similar to yours many years ago).
I've been on this forum, tho as a lurker, for a few years now. I'm going to have to say no on you "thinking much like me." Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think I would have taken notice of you.
Anti-capitalist mentality does not in any way deal with anything relevant to economics or politics. It merely says anybody who questions capitalism is jealous of someone above him.
And seriously, where is the methodological individualism in a view like that?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I've been on this forum, tho as a lurker, for a few years now. I'm going to have to say no on you "thinking much like me."
Thank you for the compliment, but when I said I used to think like you "years ago", I meant many years ago, as in the last two decades of the 20th century.
Too bad my thinking was so off base for such a long time. It makes me sick to think I held socialist views for 10 years, then interventionist views for 15 years. 25 years shot. 23 of those years were spent voting, first the D's then the R's. Again, so much wasted time.
If I had discovered the long lost Anti-Capitalistic Mentality when I was in college, my life would have changed for the better.
"the top 2% of the country could fund food &shelters, and education courses, and never even feel the pinch."
You realize, of course, that here in the U.S. the "top 2%" has had a significant fraction of what they made taken from them on the way up, right?
We have nonzero income, corporate, and capital gains taxes already. So what you've said is clearly false. They've already felt the pinch, and it hasn't fixed the problem. If you have some evidence that they haven't, give the IRS a call, I'm sure they'll be interested, but until you do, leave the baseless accusations for another forum.
Ignoring the fact that these rich people have already given about half of what they've made to a government that already spends basically all of its revenue on poverty relief programs (revenue, not total spending--the government borrows, too!) and the problem has not improved will lead you to incorrect paths of thought. The temptation to take just a little more among them.
For every dollar of poverty relief spending, two things happen:
1. One dollar that might be used to fund the production of capital goods is consumed, obstructing the generation of more productive means, which enrich everyone.
2. One dollar that someone labored to make, is taken away, thus disincentivizing productive labor directly.
whoa, tons of replies :)
some stuff came up at work so i've been busy for a few days. I have some reading to do :)
and then i will come back and learn some more. I do appreciate the thought put into the replies and the recognition that though i have different views - i am only looking for what make sense. if that means everything i think is wrong... so be it ;) the truth is more important... hopefull it's not that severe though :)
i'll be back though, just didn't want everyone to think i disappeared.