The enforcement of unjust property claims by the state is an example. For instance giving huge land grants to railroads or colonists and then enforcing the property claims as rights.
Snowflake:Yes I am saying that the elite take advantage of the current legal system. I think that we all bear the full cost of enforcement through taxes/regulations/other institutional gems.
By "we all" do you mean that the non-wealthy/non-elite bear MORE than their "full cost of enforcement", i.e. that they in some way subsidize the cost of enforcement for the wealthy -- under a state, that is? I am asking this because this is not the first time I've run into this (for me) somewhat conflicting argument. On one hand, the state is presented as a mere re-distributor (thief) of wealth from wealthy (prosperous, productive) individuals to the ("lazy", "pampered", wrongly-incentivized) masses, then on the other, the state is also re-distributing (stealing) "something" from the masses and handing it out to the wealthy (such as in this example of implied subsidization of cost of enforcement). I am having trouble deciding which way does the wealth re-distribution (subsidies) are eventually going, and would be curious to hear your thoughts.
Z.
Htut: DD5: Htut: Daniel: Htut: Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses. Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality. I would like to throw in the time component into this. You may be wealthier than most people now, but later you may dirt poor because you didn't adapt to the market. You may more intelligent than everyone else, but some one else may come along at a later time and take your spot. In other words, there will always (theoretically and realistically) a wealthier class, but over time, the individuals who compose that class will not always be the same. Agreed. In fact, it is important to remember they do not compose some unified 'class' at all, but are in fact distinct and heterogenous individuals. Only the market can make the poor man rich and the rich man poor. Also, to acquire wealth is always the result of supplying others with the things they want. Bill Gates is very rich because he made billions of people better off then they were before. The wealth is simply a reflection of success in making others better off. It is false to believe that there is ever some trade off between Laisez-faire and something else. The only "trade off" is that people are envious of the success of others, so they are inclined to accept the myths about "one man's wealth is the cause for another man's poverty". Bill Gates was excellent at what he did, yet most of his wealth comes through state enforcement of IP claims and the income of the cartelized industries who won't even try to avoid IP laws due to their being bound up with the entire system themselves.
DD5: Htut: Daniel: Htut: Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses. Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality. I would like to throw in the time component into this. You may be wealthier than most people now, but later you may dirt poor because you didn't adapt to the market. You may more intelligent than everyone else, but some one else may come along at a later time and take your spot. In other words, there will always (theoretically and realistically) a wealthier class, but over time, the individuals who compose that class will not always be the same. Agreed. In fact, it is important to remember they do not compose some unified 'class' at all, but are in fact distinct and heterogenous individuals. Only the market can make the poor man rich and the rich man poor. Also, to acquire wealth is always the result of supplying others with the things they want. Bill Gates is very rich because he made billions of people better off then they were before. The wealth is simply a reflection of success in making others better off. It is false to believe that there is ever some trade off between Laisez-faire and something else. The only "trade off" is that people are envious of the success of others, so they are inclined to accept the myths about "one man's wealth is the cause for another man's poverty".
Htut: Daniel: Htut: Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses. Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality. I would like to throw in the time component into this. You may be wealthier than most people now, but later you may dirt poor because you didn't adapt to the market. You may more intelligent than everyone else, but some one else may come along at a later time and take your spot. In other words, there will always (theoretically and realistically) a wealthier class, but over time, the individuals who compose that class will not always be the same. Agreed. In fact, it is important to remember they do not compose some unified 'class' at all, but are in fact distinct and heterogenous individuals.
Daniel: Htut: Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses. Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality. I would like to throw in the time component into this. You may be wealthier than most people now, but later you may dirt poor because you didn't adapt to the market. You may more intelligent than everyone else, but some one else may come along at a later time and take your spot. In other words, there will always (theoretically and realistically) a wealthier class, but over time, the individuals who compose that class will not always be the same.
Htut: Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses. Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality.
Snowflake: Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige. But rich people buy nice clothes poor people buy cheap clothes... it is conceivable that when a conflict arises between two that the richer might be able to pay his way through even if they are in the wrong. My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses.
Htut:I do not think such arguments make sense in laissez-faire. It is akin to saying that producers of Bentleys will always make more money than producers of cheap porrige.
My strategy has been to concede that even if this does become the case that it is preferable to the status quo where elites do not bear the full cost of enforcement. At least in laissez-faire one must pay all of the expenses.
Wealthier, more active and more intelligent people will have the edge over their less wealthy, less active and less intelligent brethren whether or not they are in the right. But this is not a 'problem' of the market, it is a fact of reality.
I would like to throw in the time component into this. You may be wealthier than most people now, but later you may dirt poor because you didn't adapt to the market. You may more intelligent than everyone else, but some one else may come along at a later time and take your spot. In other words, there will always (theoretically and realistically) a wealthier class, but over time, the individuals who compose that class will not always be the same.
Agreed. In fact, it is important to remember they do not compose some unified 'class' at all, but are in fact distinct and heterogenous individuals.
Only the market can make the poor man rich and the rich man poor.
Also, to acquire wealth is always the result of supplying others with the things they want. Bill Gates is very rich because he made billions of people better off then they were before. The wealth is simply a reflection of success in making others better off. It is false to believe that there is ever some trade off between Laisez-faire and something else. The only "trade off" is that people are envious of the success of others, so they are inclined to accept the myths about "one man's wealth is the cause for another man's poverty".
Bill Gates was excellent at what he did, yet most of his wealth comes through state enforcement of IP claims and the income of the cartelized industries who won't even try to avoid IP laws due to their being bound up with the entire system themselves.
I think those copyrights have become very meaningless, considering all the piracy that goes on anyway. Furthermore, I don't think Bill Gates ever sought to expand the IP laws to his benefit. Anyway, if he is going to be faulted for using IP laws, then any business that uses governement roads to should be faulted too.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel:Anyway, if he is going to be faulted for using IP laws, then any business that uses governement roads to should be faulted too.
There is a good point in there that someone could easily miss by objecting, "they can't avoid using government roads." While it's true they can't avoid it (if they want to do business), I think the greater lesson is that when there is a state (or monopoly on force), every relation - or even property relation - is so messed up as to defy most absolute statements we would try to make about it.
In a sense, it seems to make more sense overall to view it as "state-itis" - a disease condition of society itself. Yes there is that malignant tumor draining all the resources over there, redirecting blood flow, even creating new arteries to feed it, but there is no part of the body that goes unchanged or unaffected, nor is there any part of the body that doesn't in some way contribute to the growth of that tumor. Instead of saying to the kidney: "it's your fault for helping the tumor by cleaning the blood for it," it might be more rational to simply focus on the fact that there is a disease and how it could be cured.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: Instead of saying to the kidney: "it's your fault for helping the tumor by cleaning the blood for it," it might be more rational to simply focus on the fact that there is a disease and how it could be cured.
Instead of saying to the kidney: "it's your fault for helping the tumor by cleaning the blood for it," it might be more rational to simply focus on the fact that there is a disease and how it could be cured.
I agree! Great point.