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
This post probably won't win you many friends on this site. But I am in your camp as well.
My position is; even with coercive redistribution, some do anything they can to not have to pay in. Most republicans when talking about cutting spending are only talking about benefits to poor people. For them, war and corporate welfare is a-ok. They do anything they can to weasel as much as possible out of paying back the community.
So, obviously coercive redistribution is not practical enough, add to that its immorality, and it really does not look so well. What needs to be created is a culture of brotherhood. People have to realize that nobody who exists within the division of labor has "done it on their own." Nobody.
One of my favorite ideas is setting up labor/consumer unions that organize boycotts (of both consumption and labor) of companies that have inadequate wages, poor labor standards, or minimal payback to the community.
Corporate fraud, and other shady business practices (think BP or Enron) should also be much stronger offenses; you should go to real prison, not some white collar country club.
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 believe that without laws and religion most people are essentially good at the start - but i do see that life experience changes them.
Life experiences are a personal matter, not a communal matter. You can change your religion as much as you want, but laws are either right or wrong, and not to be dependent upon one person's bad experiences.
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.
Expand on that because right now it's just rhetoric with no explanation. Answer these three questions. (1) How does one person's greed affect anyone else? (2) How does one person being rich make someone else poorer? (3) What do you think this supposed "uneven distribution of wealth" comes from?
AGAIN, give examples. You keep saying these things but have no way of backing them up. It sounds like you're talking about corporatism and not capitalism. It's insulting to say that most people are successful because they're crooked.
Clearly you aren't as libertarian as you think. The BP spill wasn't due to greed. You realize that they wouldn't have been drilling so far out in the water if the government let them drill on land. There wouldn't have been an accident - at least not one of such a grand scale. Not to mention that the amount of oil that was spilled into the gulf coast was approximately what we use every 3 hours. You're taking advantage of our easy oil.
Okay, you're not a libertarian. That's the most Keynesian thing I've ever heard. You think that because someone can afford to buy someone a house that they should be forced to do so? Just because Bill Gates has billions of dollars, it doesn't make me any poorer. It's not a zero-sum game like you think. You're thinking of the economy in terms of tug-of-war whereby Bill Gates is pulling his side really hard and it's making mine shorter. Education 'courses' can be found at the library in books. Most of what I've learned has had nothing to do with school.
YET IT NEVER HAPPENS? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Look at Warren Buffett. Look at every single philanthrocapitalist in the world giving away so much money. Money that they worked very hard for and run the companies we use every day. The fact that you think charity never happens is disgraceful, and says more about you than those big bad rich people.
They don't give enough of their money away? Forget about the $40 billion Warren Buffett has given to charity. No big deal.
If you actually care about the poor - and it seems to me that you just care about yourself and how bad rich people make you feel - you'd want to have a free market because we're far as hell away from one right now.
How about stopping regulations in the market? Saying you don't like redistribution is a joke because that's exactly what you want. Slowing the rate of those two things requires redistribution of wealth legislation.
digibucc: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.
Well; as you might now, a lot of libertarians will disagree with this notion. And I think we (the libertarians) have some reasons in disagreeing with it. Could you try to conceptualize why problems are caused by 'greed' and by 'uneven distrbibution of wealth'. The reason is that the first is a motive, that doesn't necessarily turn out that bad. (Remember the Adam Smith quote?) The second part isn't really a 'cause' too; it just marks a certain state of affair; and it isn't clear why that can be a 'cause' of bad things. Unless, of course, you find the inequality itself a bad, but I would disagree with that too.
The problem in general is, is that it doesn't really solve the problem of how it is caused. How can 'greed' cause bad things? Shouldn't we look at certain actions and see whether or not they are bad, in stead of the motives people have? Because, again, greed can also be used for good, depending on how it happens. Furthermore; even if you think 'greed' is the basic problem; it doesn't follow that libertarians have it wrong, obviously. The state exists out of people and if they are basically greedy; than what hope do we have for a benevolent state?
digibucc: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.
This is an empirical generalization; which could be true or not. It might even be true; but what follows from it? Libertarians don't defend current ownershiptitles per se; we defend the peaceful acquiring and transfer of property. In so far people do that in this world; it's a good thing. In so far it's not; it's a bad thing. We focus mainly on the state because it's often relatively predatory and has this air of 'legitimacy'; but we don't focus just on the state.
So why is this a critique of libertarianism? Or is it mend as something else?
digibucc: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.
This, I would say, is empirically false. There was a lot of regulation going on in the BP-case; as been investigated and reported by a lot of legal and other scholars. I would suggest you google this, since I'm not an expert myself. But the notion that there wasn't legislation is plain false; why - on earth - would BP else drill somewhere where it's much dangerous and more expensive than in other locations, which happen to be illegal at this time? (This is just on example of a vast area of government regulation.)
digibucc: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.
This is obviously based on bad economics - you'll never get any 'richer' by giving away your money so people can buy stuf from you. (Do you give your neighbour 10 dollars on the premission that he spends it at your place? Probably not; because you won't make any money that way.)
Furthermore; even if this data was true - I seriously doubt it though - what would follow from it? Does it make them abd people because they don't redistribute their money towards consumption in stead of having it in the bank, so it can be used for capital expansion? No, obviously not; because you need capital expansion too in order to keep the amount of wealth in society sustainable. :)
digibucc: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.
Sure; we all want it. But where you go wrong is in thinking that there is no trade of in this discussion; that it's logically and unambiguously clear that we can help those people by given them lots and lots of money. This is not the case; if you divert so many money towards consumption, you'll have less capital. This isn't necessarily bad, but it isn't necessarily good either. It will help in the short run for sure; but I'm not sure about the long run though. Imagine that 2 million people just 'get' a lot of stuff out of thin air. Why are you so certain that this won't have any negative long run effects?
digibucc: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.
This is an assumption that is simply not true, as I've hinted before. Please try to spill out not only the positive effects you think that will happen, but also try on the (possible) negative consequences that might arise. Focus especially on long run effects and on effects on the sustainability of the capital structure to create the output we have. What you seem to think is that there is an easy way to create a sustainable elevation of poverty; which is simply not true. Billions have been spend by governments all over the world to elevate poverty; and yet, there is still a lot. Why would your idea change this? Yes, even if we doubled the amount; it doesn't follow we have sustainable elevation of poverty; redistribution - be it voluntary or not - is not a poverty elevation program. It's only a program that can help some temporarily to bridge certain bad ideas. Or it can help some - like handicapped - a whole life. It's not a program that can work for a big group of people as a long term idea.
digibucc: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.
I'm not too sure about that. Redistribution as a government program has a lot of negative effects: it often incentivizes poverty and dependency, it makes it harder to get out of poverty, it subsidizes bad people in bad powerful places, etc. So I'm not sure wether it's that easy that even given your preferences the world is a better world with all of these redistributional programs.
digibucc: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.
Why don't you think that freeing up markets - and allow more competiton with powerful and rich incumbents - can do both? Because I certainly do.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
the people that have the most wealth got it by doing ethically questionable, if not illegal and downright unmoral things... look at BP for example
look at BP for example
You're committing the fallacy of generalizing the extreme case. Sure, the Deepwater Horizon explosion was a newsworthy event but it's certainly not representative of businesses in the oil industry or of rich people, generally.
Let me follow your (very un-libertarian) argument so far:
1) Most wealth is ill-got, so odds are that if someone has wealth, it is the proceeds of some criminal or immoral activity 2) To fail to help those in need, when you can, is immoral 3) Therefore, those who are in need of food, shelter or education are justiied in using the (violent) appartus of government to seize wealth from those above some, as yet unspecified, "wealthy line" ($250K?)
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.
It might seem to be a platitude but "give a man a fish..." The root problem is the Hayekian knowledge problem - you (or any other central planner) cannot possibly know what is the best way to distribute charitable money (including what amounts) because most of that knowledge is highly localized, difficult to quantify, difficult to collect, etc. Look at the welfare systems of the West... they are manifestly broken. They waste billions of dollars on healthy, young individuals who could easily work a job but who sit home playing computer games and getting drunk instead (who can blame them?) A large fraction of welfare expenditures go to subsidize idleness, which is worse than miserliness, it's destructive of human productivity.
i want the world to be a better place for everyone.
Then be prepared to be wrong about what you think is the right way to achieve this. I've learned a lot along the way and I've had to lay aside quite a few cherished superstitions along the way. The world is a complicated place, you should be suspicious of solutions to its problems that are "really simple."
Underproduction of charity is certainly not what is wrong with the world. The charitable contributions given away every year by the wealthy and governments (let alone those given away by charitable organizations which aggregate small donations from many small philanthropic donations) are more than enough to feed all the starving people in the world, house them and educate them. The problem is not money, the problem is systemic. The problems are built into our social fabric.
Clayton -
Then be prepared to be wrong about what you think is the right way to achieve this.
Agreed. And, to the OP as advice, go on YouTube and watch Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue show. And then watch some other debates with Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, and Thomas Woods. I tend to find those 3 people extremely easy to listen to coming during an introductory period because I can tell by your arguments that you're not very libertarian at all even though you think you are. Listen to them, and then come back with some comments because your current ideas are only going to get people to angrily yell at you and it won't be productive to your education overall. Then you can start reading Murray Rothbard and Walter Block and all of the (what I call) more "intimidating" libertarians/anarchists so that you aren't too turned-away at first.
thank you all - first, I never meant to imply I am or even fully understand what libertarians believe in. that's why i came here, to better undersand it. I have always had the feeling you guys recognized somehting i was missing... and i do see you looking at a bigger picture - but still i don't se eit coming down to answers, just more questions. you'll just ask if something would REALLY work that way... well i don't kknow - that's why i asked, what do you think the answer is? is there one other than "that's not it"?
i do see how it is shortsighted to think redistribution alone or even at all can solve the problems. i think educational and medicinal programs however, could make that difference, i never wanted to give them money directly - but rather take care of the things (like shelter and food, education and medicine) that would then allow them to (hopefully) do something with their lives. I know it wouldn't work for all - but i believe it would work for a large number. and donating net worth for increasing profits makes sense. I never pointed they would hold more money by giving it away, but rather they COULD start to EARN more money in the long term, by helping others get on their feet.
GRANTED, I don't see the problems being solved until the world has a change of heart. But I truly don't see that happening for centuries. that's too long.
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, good. I recognize they are not cause->effect, but I do see that they COULD cause an effect so great, with so little effort. I can spend my entire life trying and not have the oppourtunity to make the impact these people could
i think that's what the core issue comes down to for me. and by wealthy or rich people - i'm not talking about $250k... i'm talking about 700k+/yr or net worth in the billions. I just simply can't see how someone can have that kind of money and not do more good with it. Brian talked about how much money a few wealthy people have invested - and i was very obviously aware of those , which is why i did not FULLY generalize and say no wealthy people ever donate.
but look at this list: (donations)
http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html
and then this one: (net worth)
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/09/22/forbes-400-the-richest-people-in-america/
I recognize that Warren Buffet and Bill/Melinda have donated a lot. but they are very definitely the exception - I would like to see brian point out a few more with such a large donation. 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... I can't help but think , MORALLY, that they don't deserve it. even if technically and realistically they do.
I have a hard time reconciling that moral view with my logical view of the world. and that's where i run into trouble.
you guys have given me a lot to think about, thank you very much. I will read some more and watch those videos - but I would love some more replies to break apart my thoughts... I really am not trying to present an idea, so much as refine it for my own self.
thanks,
Kyle
oops.
sorry - one more reply.
"the problem is systemic. The problems are built into our social fabric.
Clayton -"
I fully agree. but then, what is the answer? I'd rather do something that could be potentially the wrong answer than do NOTHING and say the problem is too big.
I fully recognize the world is a comlicated place. I did not mean to sound so naive as to think charity alone could solve it. there would be no need for "charity" if people were of a different mindset. the world would be perfect, if only people weren't the way they are.
but to me, that is not an answer. people ARE the way they are. and the more money and power they have, the more likely they will use it to widen the gap between themselves and those with less. I get this from world history, so please explain how it might be wrong (if so).
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.
digibucc: hello, new here. still trying to learn :) "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." I don't think the problem is 'greed'(whatever that is). As to uneven distribution of wealth that is due to corporatism(collusion of state and big business) Corporations and big business benefit largely from statism at the expense of everyone else especially the poor and workers. For a deep look into this go here Alliance of Libertarian Left. "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. " Again this is quite a left-libertarian position. "look at BP for example - the gulf spill was due to greed - yet nothing will happen to bp," Due to state enforced limited liability- a privilege inherent in corporations. "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. " That's understandable.I think the state taxation and welfare decreases the impulse to charitable giving and decreases it's possibility. "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." Redistribution is possible without the state.The free market is the most redistributionist form of organization there is.It would destroy statist privileged concentration of wealth and power.In a free market there is likely to be a larger distribution of wealth,more jobs, little -no absolute poverty and decreased relative poverty which could be helped by mutual aid(aka friendly societies) ,charities etc.
hello, new here. still trying to learn :) "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."
I don't think the problem is 'greed'(whatever that is). As to uneven distribution of wealth that is due to corporatism(collusion of state and big business) Corporations and big business benefit largely from statism at the expense of everyone else especially the poor and workers.
For a deep look into this go here Alliance of Libertarian Left.
"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. "
Again this is quite a left-libertarian position.
"look at BP for example - the gulf spill was due to greed - yet nothing will happen to bp,"
Due to state enforced limited liability- a privilege inherent in corporations.
"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. "
That's understandable.I think the state taxation and welfare decreases the impulse to charitable giving and decreases it's possibility.
"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."
Redistribution is possible without the state.The free market is the most redistributionist form of organization there is.It would destroy statist privileged concentration of wealth and power.In a free market there is likely to be a larger distribution of wealth,more jobs, little -no absolute poverty and decreased relative poverty which could be helped by mutual aid(aka friendly societies) ,charities etc.
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.
thank you scott, great post. i am reading your link now!
What if the wrong answer is much worse than no answer? The Russian "experiment" in communism was completed at the cost of tens of millions of lives of innocents. How could absolute anarchy have been any worse?! RJ Rummel has calculated the death toll at the hands of governments in the 20th century to be 262 million.
I fully recognize the world is a comlicated place. I did not mean to sound so naive as to think charity alone could solve it. there would be no need for "charity" if people were of a different mindset.
First, let's be clear that redistribution is not charity. While charity is an essential part of human society, it is impossible to conclude that money used in simple charity does more good than money invested for profit. Certainly, if no money were given to charity, the world would be worse off. But, then, if charity is always better than investment, then we humanists should wish that no money were put to investment. But this is obviously wrong, as well. So, while charity is an essential part of human society, so is investment and there's no simple equation that permits us to calculate how much of which is the right amount.
the world would be perfect, if only people weren't the way they are.
Huh? You can't be serious.
but to me, that is not an answer. people ARE the way they are. and the more money and power they have, the more likely they will use it to widen the gap between themselves and those with less.
Well, yes, we can arrive at the praxeological conclusion that those at the top of the economic pile have a greater interest in controlling trade than competing. The left ignorantly characterizes rich capitalists, industrialists and political leaders as free market advocates. Nothing could be further from the truth. The free market is not a zero-sum game unless you're already at the top. If you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or David Rockefeller or Evelyn de Rothschild or the Saudi king, you have nowhere to go, in a competitive market, but down.
I get this from world history, so please explain how it might be wrong (if so). 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.
Well, when you are talking about government solutions to problems, you are talking about violent solutions to problems. So, you had better be pretty damn sure that killing X number of people and impoverishing Y number of people and destroying Z amount of human productivity and ingenuity in the pursuit of your "answers" really is worth it. Personally, I don't think you can ever justify violence except in defense of yourself or for restitution or retribution for wrongs done.
Just a quick point, you mentioned something about the Waltons' money sitting in an account building interest somewhere, not helping anyone. That isn't true, that money is/can be loaned out to individuals that need it, and thus are willing to pay interest on it.
the gulf spill was due to greed
cant compute, sorry. What does greed has to do with ANYTHING? And nice to meet an open-minded person on mises.org, no sarcasm here. Being open to new ideas is a thing that many people (especially newbies) lack here.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)