|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is exactly what I'm curious about.
Within an overriding framework of capitalism, there are pockets where other economic systems enhance value.
Maybe you should elaborate on what these pockets are. Did you mean when someone enters into a relationship, it enhances their value? Okay, I can get behind that, but again, consent is crucial to the equation. I don't believe it can be stated that there are pockets within a capitalist framework wherein coercion enhances value.
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I asked this:
Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?
(Although, I wish I had asked, "Is it just?" rather than, "Is it fair?")
You interpreted it as this:
Is the free market fair?
I don't see them as the same question. I am not stipulating any particular market strategy (or whatever).
I felt you were implying that a system where everyone voluntarily agrees to all exchanges of resources was necessarily one in which punishments and rewards are sometimes based on factors outside of the control of the actors. Did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Of course, this is what a capitalistic society is, and of course, that is true of capitalistic societies. And it is fair and just by a reasonable interpretation of the definitions of those words.
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What are the perils of attempting to address this systemic injustice?
You need first to establish why it is unjust for two people to have different levels of wealth from birth. Not state it as a given. It is a fact of life that fortunes are distributed unevenly. Life is risk, the concepts are inseparable. And its not only with wealth. Some of us are born with favorable genetics. Two children may be born with enormous worldly wealth but one has shitty parents who don't hug him enough. He grows up to be a neurotic mess. Does the state need to enforce hugs as well?
If you want to make a case for states to subsidize the poor, it needs to be from a different point of view than social justice. An economic case needs to be made that this actually benefits society. At the very least it needs to benefit the poor people you mean to help. In most cases the anti-poverty measures even fail at that. In other cases, the programs simply increase the population growth of the poor by directly incentivizing single motherhood. If the aim is to even the playing field and smooth out the variance of being born, then the methods need to be subtle. The state is never subtle.
|