|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.
I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.
To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.
As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day.
So far, this is good stuff. Everybody is gaining from their actions and all their actions are by choice. In fact, everybody is gaining THE MOST by these choices that they can according to their constraints and their knowledge of their preferences.
And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.
This seems proper to you?
Nah that's bad. I have always argued for systems that deter this sort of thing.
Protection of property is of the utmost importance and it is one of the important pieces of the puzzle to solve the problem you laid out. Currently, the government protects property, at least that's the legal incidence instead of the social or economic incidence; lots of property the government is legally supposed to protect goes unprotected. I believe (for good reason) that individuals freely choosing in markets protects property more effectively than the government does.
|
Reply With Quote