= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
In this account, how did I get so much more healthy, wealthy, and educated than you are? Is there any way to do whatever that was to you, as well, or is it better to just let you die (or kill you)? Would it have similarly been better to let me die (or kill me) before doing whatever it was that made me so much more healthy, wealthy, and educated? How can we tell?
I can't shake off the impression that you're implicitly assuming the thesis. I'll try to answer what I can.
Why the implicit assumption that redistribution has a net positive impact here? Another implicit assumption here is that we're all born equal. Genetics aside, don't the children inherit the mindset of their close ones to a large degree? Aren't societies semi-stable, self-reinforcing, whatever their current wellbeing is? Africa is still poor, despite years of foreign aid. Middle east is still fighting, despite years of foreign interventions... What you need to do is to create incentives to break out of the current state of things and survival instinct is an excellent incentive which can be applied to poor people. What redistribution does is removing this powerful incentive and creating opposite ones. Basically, you're rewarding people for making poor economic decisions.
Assuming it was redistribution that made you wealthy and educated, does it work reliably on the majority of poor people? Without forcing them somehow out of their current environment? That's along the same lines of thought as that giving someone a million dollars reliably makes them a millionaire.
This argument only makes sense if you already believe that redistribution reliably works, or anything reliably works, for that matter. People are notoriously difficult to change.
The question I asked was, in your scenario, what creates/maintains/justifies the disparity between us.
Your answer seems to be that (genetics aside), in your scenario the root cause is innate advantages due to differences in early environment, which are themselves the result of self-reinforcing patterns in our societies, which causes me to make better decisions than you do.
Is that right? (It's hard to tell, because you don't answer my question so much as you treat it as an unarticulated assertion with which you argue.)
Yes, that's correct. I'm arguing that redistribution in any form of giving "stuff" for free makes it worse by providing strong incentives to maintain status quo.
Have you read Yvain's non-libertarian FAQ?
Thanks for being clear about that.
On your account does redistribution in the form of, for example, using my "stuff" to educate others in how to make better decisions necessarily make it worse?
Good question.
If your relative wealth is a result of genetics, not effort, do you still have an absolute moral claim on it?
Well, I'm not an illtetrate farm labourer like my ancestors.
Why would it have to? You can argue that people have a right to the opportunity of an education, irrespective of outcomes, and you can argue that educating people up to their potential has a nett positive effect. Neither argument requires education to lead to positive outcomes in every individual case.
Western societies introduced universal free education over a century ago, and are now much richer.