From: Stephen Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:05:14 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961126110818.4290A-100000@deimos.ceddec.com>
Message-ID: <329BA29F.B97@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tom Zerucha wrote:
> 
> Some basic points on the thread
> 
>1. For wealth to be "handed down", it must be earned or confiscated first.
>Mao's widow lived quite well during Mao's life and for a while after his
>death.  

  Well China is nor more of an example of communism than Argentina
is of Capitalism--they are both totalitarim regimes that use ideology
as an excuse to plunder.  It would be unfair for example to use
Marcos wife (and her shoe collection) as an example of why 
capitalism doesn't work.


> Also, if there was no direct way to pass wealth on to offspring,
> it would be consumed or destroyed by the generation which created it.  

  Perhaps by some--not most.  Many die without wills--the wealthy
tend to be much more careful with such things of course but you could
allow provisions to have a percentage donated to non-political chartible 
organizations.


> You may not agree with the choice of the original Kennedys and 
> Rockefellers, but limiting that choice is not without consequence 
> - the wealth will still not end up where you want it, and a great 
> amount will be left uncreated.

  I sincerely don't believe that.  If you look at your above
examples, or Bill Gates below, much of their motivation is not
the accumulation of weath per se but rather power and performance.
I know I would do much the same job (not that I'm in the wealthy)
even if the salary were more or less--I enjoy it (I'm a programmer).
Same is true for education--much of the motivation is either 
intrinsic or status oriented and has little or nothing to do with
marketablity.

 
> 2. In a socialist society wealth is confiscated at gunpoint.  

  Not at all--no more or less so than in capatilistic societies.


> In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want 
> more than your wealth in order to obtain it.  

  That's true--as with all labor--but it is a matter of scale.  
Gates would do the same thing if you limited his income just
for the sake of power accumulation--he's got all the money
he could ever consume.  That's not his real motive.

 
> 3. If wealth isn't being transferred, it is most likely because Government
> has created a monopoly or oligopoly.  If I have a better idea for a car, I
> cannot simply just build one, since any modification to the powertrain has
> to be certified by the EPA.  So if I could get 2 Miles/gallon better
> mileage without a change in emissions for a $50 modification, I still have
> to spend over $1 Million satisfying the bureaucracy and generating no
> profit.  The existing auto industries have no incentive to change this
> because these are sunk costs, and they can keep their oligopoly.

  Yes-our auto industry is a disgrace and I agree we do no favors
protecting them or bailing them out.  On the other hand goverment 
must protect against the creation of business monopoly which is
even more stifling.

 
> 4. When you say wealth isn't being transferred, it is also generally
> untrue.  While someone may be controlling it, their control is usually not
> to leave it under a matress (which would make my wealth comparatively more


   Sorry to chop out so much about Microsoft--but sure most wealth is
transferred in this country--that's a statisitical fact.  Yes--there
is consumption but when accumalation gets into the multi-millions that
becomes irrelevant--money grows as you know--stocks, property, etc. and
that is all that is passed down.  There are few on either of these mailing
lists that if given 10 million dollars could not sit on their ass for
the rest of their lives consuming comfortably and watch their money double
by the time they pass away.

 
> 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem.  The

   As inefficeint as it is it is really the only effective means.  A
simple 100% inheritance tax would be very helpful as would limitations
on how much property a given individual (and a corporation is a virutal
individual) may own.

 
> 6. No one has given any reason why the dollar following the 10-millionth
> has less claim of ownership than the first 10-million.  You can dislike
> the situation, but I would like to hear a *consistent* theory of property
> rights that holds a sliding scale of claim based on volume.  Does the
> grocer with 200 tomatoes need to give away 20 because a store down the
> street has only 180?  What if the situation is reversed the next day?


  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.

  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.

  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.  

  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.

                            Steve