Hi,
This is my first post at the LvM community board, but I've been reading a lot of threads here lately. Keep up the good work!
There's a question that's been wandering through my mind for the last few days. It's about the spread of wealth. If you look at the semi-capitalist society we live in, the richest people are people like Bill Gates, who've accumulated tons of wealth with Microsoft. Now obviously, in an ip free society, this wouldn't be possible. Others would emulate the good things about it and continue to improve it. He wouldn't be the billionaire he's know if I'm correct.
So my question is: do you guys think that in an anarcho-capitalist society people wouldn't be that rich like Bill Gates and instead have a more equal spread of wealth? I'm not saying that's necessary better. If there are any articles or ebooks on it, I'd be really interested in reading them.
P.s. English is not my first language, so sorry for the spelling and grammar
There is no answer, because you have absolutely no way of knowing who would earn or own how much in such and such arbitrary situation.
It is entirely possible that a bright man like Gates and a solid company could still do well without IP laws, because court cases on IP are normally done over products and ideas already saturated in the consumer market, and brilliant new ideas normally come from lots of small companies (see Notion Ink Adam) and not from large established companies like Microsoft. Microsoft's work is more on strategy and selling what has already been made.
IP lawsuits are normally pressed for a minor advantage and making a minor dent on the competitor: typical of a greedy and materialistic world (yes, yes, I know). It's pure pettiness, as embodied by Larry Ellison's "It's not enough that I win; everybody else must lose." It's unnecessary and won't make a difference.
I bet that without the state Bill Gates would be much more richer. And people in general. And it's not about IP only.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I think wealth would be distributed more equally and wealth in general would be much higher. There was a graph somewhere around here that correlated freedom with wealth distribution and other parameters. The more free an economy was, the more equal was the wealth distributed.
BramElias: Hi, This is my first post at the LvM community board, but I've been reading a lot of threads here lately. Keep up the good work! There's a question that's been wandering through my mind for the last few days. It's about the spread of wealth. If you look at the semi-capitalist society we live in, the richest people are people like Bill Gates, who've accumulated tons of wealth with Microsoft. Now obviously, in an ip free society, this wouldn't be possible. Others would emulate the good things about it and continue to improve it. He wouldn't be the billionaire he's know if I'm correct. Quite Possibly he wouldn't.It's impossible to know precisely but I think he wouldn't have the wealth he gains due to state privilege now. So my question is: do you guys think that in an anarcho-capitalist society people wouldn't be that rich like Bill Gates and instead have a more equal spread of wealth? I'm not saying that's necessary better. If there are any articles or ebooks on it, I'd be really interested in reading them. What your asking here is what left-libertarianism concerns itself with.Left-libertarians typically believe that there would be a more equal spread of wealth in an anarchist society than in the current corporatist state one. I agree with that being a newly minted left-lib myself. The current distrubtion of wealth and land is largely due to state intervention e.g. patents,copyright,land monopoly,land theft,zoning,subsidies,licensing ,military-industrial complex etc. I'm not sure of any article or book that deals with exactly this issue but you can find thinking like this in Rothbard on land Theft. Other than that you can find it in bits and pieces in left libertarian writers like Gary Chartier,Roderick T. Long,Charles Johnson Aka Radgeek, Kevin Carson etc. Oh and you might want to try asking at The Forums of the Libertarian Left. P.s. English is not my first language, so sorry for the spelling and grammar
Quite Possibly he wouldn't.It's impossible to know precisely but I think he wouldn't have the wealth he gains due to state privilege now.
What your asking here is what left-libertarianism concerns itself with.Left-libertarians typically believe that there would be a more equal spread of wealth in an anarchist society than in the current corporatist state one. I agree with that being a newly minted left-lib myself. The current distrubtion of wealth and land is largely due to state intervention e.g. patents,copyright,land monopoly,land theft,zoning,subsidies,licensing ,military-industrial complex etc.
I'm not sure of any article or book that deals with exactly this issue but you can find thinking like this in Rothbard on land Theft.
Other than that you can find it in bits and pieces in left libertarian writers like Gary Chartier,Roderick T. Long,Charles Johnson Aka Radgeek, Kevin Carson etc.
Oh and you might want to try asking at The Forums of the Libertarian Left.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
BramElias:Thanks for the answer @MaikU: What I was asking was how rich Bill Gates would be compared to other people, not compared to the current situation. I agree with you that everybody would probably be richer. People allways complain about their relative wealth instead of their absolute, so an affirmative answer to my question would be useful in discussions.
Ok, I agree with what Metus said. I would speculate too, that he wouldn't be that much richer than other people like it is today. So yeah. But again, it's just my amature speculation.
I was going to ask this in a sepate thread, but it seems like this one would be appropriate, and the Gates IP thing reminded me of it. I have not yet read Myth of the Robber Barons, so I'm not sure if this is covered there or not. I know people bring up the robber barons as examples of the perils of laissez faire capitalism, and the standard free-market response is that guys like Rockefeller greatly helped society on net because they kept oil plentiful at cheap prices, and the demonization mostly came from their less-efficient competitors, and that the robber barons were generally beneficial until they began enlisting government to regulate their competitors and help them cartelize.
Many cite a key reason for Rockefeller's advantage being the many processes his chemists pioneered to maximize the yield and the variety of products he could derive from each barrel of oil. What I was wondering is, does anyone know how heavily he relied on patents of these processes to maintain his advantage? If he did so significantly, couldn't you then argue that the consumers may have been hurt by the legal monopoly of these processes conferred to Rockefeller, and the denial of access to them of any outsider that might have been able to build upon it more rapidly? I have no idea, though... maybe he didn't aggressively protect his patents. I did a Google search and didn't immediately find much, so I was wondering whether anyone here knows.
Scott F:What your asking here is what left-libertarianism concerns itself with.Left-libertarians typically believe that there would be a more equal spread of wealth in an anarchist society than in the current corporatist state one. I agree with that being a newly minted left-lib myself. The current distrubtion of wealth and land is largely due to state intervention e.g. patents,copyright,land monopoly,land theft,zoning,subsidies,licensing ,military-industrial complex etc.
What is largely? Is all wealth material?
This stuff is silly.
Also, why do LLs always leave out welfare?
Mises Pieces: Many cite a key reason for Rockefeller's advantage being the many processes his chemists pioneered to maximize the yield and the variety of products he could derive from each barrel of oil. What I was wondering is, does anyone know how heavily he relied on patents of these processes to maintain his advantage? If he did so significantly, couldn't you then argue that the consumers may have been hurt by the legal monopoly of these processes conferred to Rockefeller, and the denial of access to them of any outsider that might have been able to build upon it more rapidly? I have no idea, though... maybe he didn't aggressively protect his patents. I did a Google search and didn't immediately find much, so I was wondering whether anyone here knows.
I've been wondering about this recently.We jumped so quickly to praise this guy without considering whether he was state privileged.It worries me.It wouldn't surprise me if he was.
liberty student: Scott F:What your asking here is what left-libertarianism concerns itself with.Left-libertarians typically believe that there would be a more equal spread of wealth in an anarchist society than in the current corporatist state one. I agree with that being a newly minted left-lib myself. The current distrubtion of wealth and land is largely due to state intervention e.g. patents,copyright,land monopoly,land theft,zoning,subsidies,licensing ,military-industrial complex etc. "What is largely? Is all wealth material?" The current distribution of land and monetary wealth is largely due to the state.No ,not all wealth is material.I meant money. "This stuff is silly." It very much isn't.It's just an application of libertarian principles and economics in a new way that is completely consistent with other concerns. We always look at how the state causes X problem and most here recognise that the state is the cause of most problems in the world-directly or indirectly- so why not this too? "Also, why do LLs always leave out welfare?" I don't know.I certainly don't.The rich receive corporate welfare and the poor welfare.But it hurts the poor in actuality because they become dependent on it.
"What is largely? Is all wealth material?"
The current distribution of land and monetary wealth is largely due to the state.No ,not all wealth is material.I meant money.
"This stuff is silly."
It very much isn't.It's just an application of libertarian principles and economics in a new way that is completely consistent with other concerns.
We always look at how the state causes X problem and most here recognise that the state is the cause of most problems in the world-directly or indirectly- so why not this too?
"Also, why do LLs always leave out welfare?"
I don't know.I certainly don't.The rich receive corporate welfare and the poor welfare.But it hurts the poor in actuality because they become dependent on it.
Scott F:The current distribution of land and monetary wealth is largely due to the state.No ,not all wealth is material.I meant money.
What is money?
Scott F:It very much isn't.It's just an application of libertarian principles and economics in a new way that is completely consistent with other concerns.
It's not new. It's very old. It's based on anarchronism. It also confuses libertarianism with egalitarianism.
Scott F:We always look at how the state causes X problem and most here recognise that the state is the cause of most problems in the world-directly or indirectly- so why not this too?
Comrade, please stop saying "we". There is no we. There are individuals. Methodological individualism pls.
It's silly to blame everything on a convenient scapegoat like the state, but the issue isn't the state, the issue is a lack of property rights. LLs don't like to talk about property rights, because under a property rights regime, egalitarianism can't be more than an aesthetic.
Scott F:"Also, why do LLs always leave out welfare?" I don't know.I certainly don't.The rich receive corporate welfare and the poor welfare.But it hurts the poor in actuality because they become dependent on it.
Both parties become dependent. Rich and poor are both human beings, who responded similarly to the same incentives. Class theory based on materialism is marxism not libertarianism.
"under a property rights regime, egalitarianism can't be more than an aesthetic."
Well, I think that just mathematically, if the poor get poorer or the rich get richer than ultimately there would have to be some intersection between the two wealth rates until they equal one another. On the market, due to equilibrium and competition, profits tend to decrease especially when compared to wages -the laborer will always receive the lion's share of income as Say recognized. That doesn't prevent some becoming super rich through entrepreneurship but this tendency towards greater profits and more obvious inequality is not enough to outway the greater tendency towards equilibrium which represents a vast wealth transfer to workers and only a few individuals with a lot of wealth. IMO the market tends to equalize profits across all areas of life.
A couple notes:
- The world is already anarchic at the largest scale (international), always has been and, I believe, always will be. In this sense, anarchy is more descriptive than prescriptive.
- Variation in capital stocks between individuals, families and other organizations is immense because the largest capital stocks are immense. I believe that the size of capital stocks is really just a function of technology. Who's richer, someone who owned the top-10 largest manufacturing corporations in 1910 or someone who owns the top-10 largest manufacturing corporations in 2010? Obviously, the latter, regardless of any other considerations, simply because the top-10 manufacturing corporations today can produce immensely more goods than the top-10 manufacturing corporations of 1910 could have even dreamed of. Jet planes, computers, cell phones, the internet, robotics and embedded systems, etc. explain why this is the case.
- I do not think the sizes of the largest capital stocks would be much different in a natural order society than they are today, if for no other reason than those who hold the largest capital stocks already effectively live in a natural order society, anarchy.
The primary difference that capitalism* makes is in the lives of the little people, the commoners. And the commoners are those who have very small capital stocks. This has always been the case. The less energies which can be taken from the masses and put to the ends of the State (that is, the private ends of those who control the State), the more rational the actions of the individuals which comprise the masses can become and the more productive the whole society will be. In other words, free men are more productive than slaves exactly because they get to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. While that would dramatically reduce the size of capital stocks that shysters and con-artists like the board of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan could build, it would place no natural limit on the size of capital stocks which honest producers of highly demanded products might build.
Clayton -
*Capitalism, in its limit, is anarchy, in my opinion
fakename:the greater tendency towards equilibrium
From where does this equilibrium originate?
LLs don't like to talk about property rights, because under a property rights regime, egalitarianism can't be more than an aesthetic.
Most libertarians don't even realize this. It's probably the biggest turn off for me:
"What? You're profiling against someone because of their weight/height/ethnicity/skin color? You're not a libertarian!"
And the above thinking obviously implies forced association. I had always throught that libertarianism had more to do with property rights and being against the initiation of force. I suppose it really depends on how people define the initiation of force, but I don't think choosing to not deal with someone based on (seemingly) arbitrary criteria can be said to be "anti-libertarian" or an initiation of force.
Anyways, the LLs can have some decent critiques... but I find that none of their solutions are well throught-out.
What I was wondering is, does anyone know how heavily he relied on patents of these processes to maintain his advantage?
I don't know information specifically about his patents, but I've heard that many of the robber barons were slightly in bed with government. Not to say that they weren't good businessmen, but the smallest push from goverment (i.e. permission to drill in State-monopolized land) can help a company in big ways at the expense of others.
I just realised something. Isn't wikipedia the proof that you can still be big even though you
don't use intellectual property? Anybody can use the wiki codes but still they are by far the largest in their
are. Of course they don't make tons of money, but that has more to do with their businessmodel.
There would definitely still be big companies/organizations even in absence of intellectual property.
But, in terms of the focus on wealth, the question is basically moot/meaningless because wealth isn't a zero-sum game, as our friends on the left think.
LS, why do you despise people who value a more equal share of wealth (even if they're not aggressors)?
I just want to know...
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
Well, equilibrium comes from arbitrage situations during the disequilibrium period.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: LS, why do you despise people who value a more equal share of wealth (even if they're not aggressors)? I just want to know...
For those who argue in favour it of see those who don't as greedy and materialistic, but they still make arguments based on material demands and interests.
It is proof enough that egalitarianism is rooted in greed and materialism. I am not materialistic; I believe that if you have money, keep it or spend it, and forget about it. What's the point of having a third party opinion on matters of money of other people? Egalitarianism is a religion and a religion only, because the end point of egalitarianism is nothing but egalitarianism.
It's just like the dispute between liberals and "positive" liberals in Europe - the positive liberals always talk about being "free to choose". Free to choose what?, we all ask, throwing our hands in the air. Equal for what?, I also ask, throwing my hands in the air.
Look at the local poster Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan. I read his blog regularly. The man earns minimum wage, and with whatever he gets and saves, he goes and buys serious heavyweight books. Just like the young Milton Friedman, who cleaned toilets for 78 cents an hour, and then used that money to buy advanced books on statistics. It's not the money you have, but what you do with it. Garbage in, garbage out. Equal distribution of wealth does not make a man better, but a love of truth, a high moral character, and the honest prayer in his heart for other people makes him better.
Prateek Sanjay:Look at the local poster Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan. I read his blog regularly. The man earns minimum wage, and with whatever he gets and saves, he goes and buys serious heavyweight books. Just like the young Milton Friedman, who cleaned toilets for 78 cents an hour, and then used that money to buy advanced books on statistics. It's not the money you have, but what you do with it. Garbage in, garbage out. Equal distribution of wealth does not make a man better, but a love of truth, a high moral character, and the honest prayer in his heart for other people makes him better.
Bravo for this Prateek.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:LS, why do you despise people who value a more equal share of wealth (even if they're not aggressors)? I just want to know...
This requires an essay length answer to do it right, and I don't know when I will have time for that.
If I post it, I will let you know.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:LS, why do you despise people who value a more equal share of wealth (even if they're not aggressors)? I just want to know... This requires an essay length answer to do it right, and I don't know when I will have time for that. If I post it, I will let you know.
Not to speak for you, LS, but I think Rothbard says it pretty well here. Variation is an inherent part of our biology. To fight against it is as futile as fighting against gravity or the conservation of energy. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purpose of fighting against gravity or conservation would be an immoral stance. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purposes of fighting against variation in humans (egalitarianism) is an immoral stance.
For the record, Rothbard's answer is not my answer.
and his answers is very weak. It is just an appeal to nature. A logical fallacy.
The man earns minimum wage, and with whatever he gets and saves, he goes and buys serious heavyweight books. Just like the young Milton Friedman, who cleaned toilets for 78 cents an hour, and then used that money to buy advanced books on statistics. It's not the money you have, but what you do with it. Garbage in, garbage out. Equal distribution of wealth does not make a man better, but a love of truth, a high moral character, and the honest prayer in his heart for other people makes him better.
You assume egalitarian minded people do not agree with this. What is with the assumption that, because we don't want people to have to struggle, when others live lives of luxury they never worked a day for, that we despise production? (ya ya, what is "we" and all that. you get the point. just change "we" to "individuals like me")
Micheal Moore is my answer to that; loves to share the wealth, makes a ton of it too. Paid for one of his haters' wife's surgeries when they couldn't afford it. Warren Buffet would like us to spread some of the wealth as well. This argument that egalitarian = unproductive is bogus. Were it true we never would have invented bow and arrows, wheels, fire, and all that good stuff.
The last sentence, I don't know many/any who would disagree with it. "We" are just not so naive to think that a good education won't create a "love of truth, high moral character..." The only way I could see you viewing this as true (egalitarian = unproductive) is if you assume the rich are biologically superior to the poor. That they make these decisions because of their genes, rather than their material opportunity.
Once again, you think biology plays a greater part in success than culture?
Why not practice eugenics?
I am not going to make a biological argument.
Rothbard sometimes loved to be bold and take contrarian stances to other people, even when it wasn't necessarilly "libertarian". In many ways, Rothbard was Rothbard. One major proof of this is when Rothbard jestingly said that maybe the Tutsis ruled over the Hutus "because they are more I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-T". Many on this forum were appalled.
Here's why I don't believe in a biological argument. The king of Babylon, Nebuchaddarezzar, defeated his enemies in Judea twice and built a powerful prospering kingdom. Yay! The Persian is #1. We are #1! Those Meditterraneans got their comeuppance twice! Maybe we Babylonians are all powerful, and maybe those Judeans are doomed as failures. But wait! What's happening? Nebuchaddarezzar is on all fours! He is barking like a dog now! He is walking on all fours butt naked and barking like a dog. We are not so cool now!
The lesson here is simple. Nature is like a great, multifaceted thing. We are all small mirrors that reflect a small part of it. The greatness of all nature and creation can be peered into in the smaller achievements that come in the form of Mozart's music or Shakespeare's work. But we are always smaller than the greatness of all the rest of creation, and we must understand that we by ourselves have limits. Even Nebuchaddarezzar didn't transcend all the things of this world, for even this great man could be nothing more than a barking dog if his talents were suddenly taken away, by illness or otherwise.
von Mises believed in a methodological dualism. Not a philosophical dualism, but a methodological one, in that there is a difference between mind and matter, and that we are incapable of bridging the two. Rothbard also believed in it, but only for the purposes of his profession. Otherwise, he still thought that biological make somewhat influences human action, even though as an economist, he would not say the same. I don't think dualism should be purely methodological, because many ethnic groups with low IQs today once had very high IQs and many ethnic groups with low IQs yesterday are now with high IQs. It means mind still has power where matter does not, in achieving.
So going by that Misesian dualism, I feel that education will not produce or change human character. Human beings are responsible for human character - they choose and they act. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but it is a Marxist argument to think education will solve all of society's ills, because it's based on the idea that material incentives influence all human activity and diverting resources to a social problem will solve a social problem. I know this, because I have personally known Marxists who make such materialistic arguments (many of them in New Delhi). And the same way, material advantage and opportunity is a very small advantage and opportunity, when we go by the Misesian dualism. It's the person who acts. If Bill Gates were fired from Microsoft and dispossessed of every asset he had, he'd become a billionaire all over again in the next few years, because he possesses rare and specific knowledge and companies will rush to hire him and offer him huge stock.
It's not a biological difference, but a matter of human choice. We see it in school. Some five year olds solve the problem quicker, because they put their mind to it, and some just don't want to put their mind to it, and it's their choice. No push and pull will change their performance across school, although Bush thought putting billions in education would.
So going by that Misesian dualism, I feel that education will not produce or change human character. Human beings are responsible for human character - they choose and they act.
It's not just any education, it is a good one. It is less education, than it is culture. If you take poor public/private schools in america, and rich public/private schools, there is a different culture to how education is approached. Of course their will always be the slow kids and the fast ones. A small few of those slow kids will get successful (entertainers, sports stars, maybe a good business deal), and a few of those smart kids will not (drugs, kids, etc) (By kids I mean they have kids and now have to get a full time job, and cant further themselves as effectively).
I don't mean this in an offensive way, but it is a Marxist argument to think education will solve all of society's ills
None taken, I'm not completely anti-Marx.
because it's based on the idea that material incentives influence all human activity and diverting resources to a social problem will solve a social problem. I know this, because I have personally known Marxists who make such materialistic arguments (many of them in New Delhi). And the same way, material advantage and opportunity is a very small advantage and opportunity, when we go by the Misesian dualism. It's the person who acts
Yes, but the question is; why do some act in a certain way? Is it culture, biology, or both? If both, is it an even mix, or does one outweigh it? As far as I know, most of the evidence nowadays points to it being more culture than biology. (Which would fit with our extreme K selection)
There is nothing I despise more than the forced day-care we call education (at least here in the states). It is not reading Hume, or Kant that will help humans realize their potential (per se), nor is it learning the history of Egypt, or the physics of pudding. It is critical thinking skills, and motivation.
If you argue with a socialist that believes teaching kids 4+4 is why education is good, they obviously don't understand the issue. But, I think it's clear that those who are taught critical thinking skills and personal effort towards a goal (I like how the chinese sum up that phrase much better; gung fu, force development), are far more likely to understand their situation and how to change it.
Who said anything about success? Why is "success" the ultimate value? The point is that the Prince saying, "I'm taking your stuff so I can make people more equal" is an obviously vacuous excuse, as vacuous as, "I'm taking your stuff so we can build an anti-gravity machine" or "I'm taking your stuff so we can build a Zero-Point Energy device." It's an unattainable goal, therefore, it cannot possibly be a moral (or legal) justification for seizing people's property.
Because it's evil?
Who said anything about success? Why is "success" the ultimate value?
Variation is an inherent part of our biology. To fight against it is as futile as fighting against gravity or the conservation of energy. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purpose of fighting against gravity or conservation would be an immoral stance. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purposes of fighting against variation in humans (egalitarianism) is an immoral stance
Um... you?
Variation is "inherent," some will succeed some will fail. To fight against it would be like NASA seizing resources to fight against gravity... disgusting.. right?
I didn't bring up success, you did. If you think I did, then you're simply failing to comprehend what I wrote.
Variation is "inherent," some will succeed some will fail.
Some children die at birth. Others die of cancer. Some are born with two heads, live for a while, then die. You can try to save lives, you can try to develop new methods of curing things but not everything can be fixed. So, we're left with the question of deciding what's worth fixing? As Thomas Sowell explains in his book Basic Economics, even an medical triage specialist at a battlefield is an economizer... he or she must choose who to help first since only one person at a time can be helped. No point helping those so badly wounded they will almost certainly die before reaching a real hospital. Of the others, some are wounded less severely and are more likely to survive even if they don't receive immediate medical attention. So, you help those who are the most severely wounded but not so severely wounded that they will almost certainly die before reaching more robust medical help.
Is it a tough choice? Yes. Is it the moral choice? Yes.
The real question that egalitarians seek to avoid is whether the use and threat of violence is justified in order to equalize. Is equalization a proper rationalization for the use of force? When stripped of its ideological grandeur and placed in a courtroom context (strict individual liability, ala Rothbard), it's clear that equalization is not a sufficient justification for the use of violence. If it really were a sufficient justification, then the thief who stole only from the rich and provably donated all his proceeds to charity should be above conviction. He doesn't hurt anyone and his theft is justified because he uses it to equalize the poor and the rich. If anything, we should make such a thief our leader, which pretty much sums up modern Western society.
To fight against it would be like NASA seizing resources to fight against gravity... disgusting.. right?
Pouring resources into the building of an anti-gravity device is as immoral as simply lighting people's houses on fire. It's just destruction for destruction's sake.
I take it you're not a fan of Robin Hood.
You know, it was once legal to beat your slave, as long as he could get back up (nvm that it was legal to have slaves).
It's not just any education, it is a good one.
This would be true, except education doesn't really exist. It is merely a term of custom, if used outside of that context we are talking religion and then bringing the ghost in the machines, and religion can not be spoken of with any coherent sense. This goes for the phrase"solving societies problem" or"equality", this is a term without any real philisophical or economic cognition. They are simply legal/ethical/religous/aesthetic/cultural fictions that can serve no real function in discussion about the premise of wealth maximization.
This is a question that can not be asked in philosophy or economics, much less answered. The question doesn't exist. We only care about how material shifts from point A to point B, nothing more. Economics can only speak of economics, biology can only speak for biology, etc. In so much as you can not absolutely dominate the action of something, it can not be spoken of with any logical sense. If you wish to study "why people do things" perhaps the very dubious subject of psychology could be studied.
This would be true, except education doesn't really exist. It is merely a term of custom
Close, except custom/culture is education. That is literally the definition of culture, customs we teach to each other, unlike natural actions.
They are simply legal/ethical/religous/aesthetic/cultural fictions that can serve no real function in discussion about the premise of wealth maximization.
The question, "what plays a bigger role in knowledge and drive, biology or culture" is not important to the study of wealth maximization?