From: Tom Zerucha <root@deimos.ceddec.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:21:51 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <329BA29F.B97@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961127145308.1948B-100000@deimos.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Stephen Boursy wrote:

>   Well the original issue we were discussing was the fact that
> a majority of wealth in the US in not earned--it is inherited.  That
> can be changed very quickly with proper legislation.

It may also be an advantage.  Anyone looking today at what passing wealth
onto the offspring does to them would make them more likely to give it to
someone else.  (I don't agree with Ayn Rand on everything, but Atlas
Shrugged has a short treatise on money, and one point she makes is that
inherited wealth is always squandered unless those who inherit it are as
good at handling it as the parent - I can also add, unless they go into
politics and rig the game).

>   As to your other issue here--earnings and limitations on accumulation,
> much would be equalized without inheritance.  But yes--there would
> still be accumulators--most would still produce regardless of
> limits because as I said their motives are not simply income--power,
> prestige, etc. all come in to play as well as the gratification that
> comes with winning.  Gates enjoys his cover on Time Mag. much more
> than a few extra million a day.

I believe in strong laws to prevent the accumulation of power.  Lord
Acton (Power tends to corrupt) was a Classical Liberal.  Wealth is one
form of power, but it is self regulating in that you can only do so
much damage until you go bankrupt.  When you own the guns, there is
much less limitation.  Gates can buy Time and put his face on every
week, but I don't think people would keep buying Time if Gates was the
only feature.  Time also puts Gates on because he is newsworthy.

>   But the basic answer to your argument--from my standpoint--is that
> some people are extremely intellegent, others very gifted in other
> ways, others very dull witted, etc.  Some possess artistic genius
> that can pay off immediately, others have none that is valued dollar
> wise by society.  I sincerly don't believe one has the right to
> live better than the other--that the rewards, if different, sould
> be negligable.  

The problem IS one of value.  When you say someone has a valuable
talent, that is not valued "dollar-wise", what value does it have?  If
you are setting yourself up as god you can give an answer, but
otherwise I don't think any of us have enough information.  Price
defines how valuable something ACUTALLY IS to society, not how much it
would be valued in Utopia, or in a particular person's utopia.

I like music of the period from Bach through Beethoven.  I, as god,
would discourage Sibelius and DeBussey from being played.  You
probably have different tastes, and as god, would favor different
music.  I express myself by buying recordings of Bach, Schubert, etc.
You buy others.  That is how the value is shown, and how rewards are
equitably distributed.  People like me paying for a CD of the goldberg
variations send information in the form of price to those considering
producing the recording.

Rock Stars and Atheletes are far more overvalued (and tend to be
corrupted by it) in a moral-philosophical sense, so should we close
down all the stadia, and only produce classical CDs - this would be
the first step toward your idea of a "just" society.

I think there are a lot of stupid people out there who would be happy
on half the income doing something they like.  But if someone values
money more than frustration, it is their choice, and I don't have the
right to violate it.  I like music, but am terrible at making it, so I
program, which I also like instead, and I don't do ironwork which
might pay well, but I don't enjoy.

I am left to the terrible justice of my own choices.

>   If I could make as much as I do know programming by working as
> a clerk in a convenience store or whatever I would still choose to
> do what I am doing.  If you are in a different situation you're
> in the wrong career.

Then I would suggest you live by your own words and become a store
clerk and work on free software.  You have no right to be happily
employed doing something you enjoy while there are miserable clerks
out there.  You should free an existing clerk to pursue his dream for
a while.  Or is it "A free market for me, but not for thee"?

I have a very good job BECAUSE it is what I like doing.  I could
easily double my income by changing my condition and battling uphill
as an independent contractor.  But I make a choice between money and
contentment.  We all do.  And I cannot set up a better system.

tz@execpc.com
finger tz@execpc.com for PGP key