Re: justice, justice... Was: Anti-Semitism in the Neo-Confederate movement.

In <dpgq3b$gh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Rafael" <jmalfatto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>I suspect that your definition of 'market' here is much broader than mine.
>After all, for most of human existence (e.g. in the hunter-gatherer mode of
>subsistence), there were no markets, as we know them today. There was simply
>a combination of natural resources and labor. The closest thing to a market
>was barter.

I think even the Neanderthal had some degree of trade, and therefore
markets, but your point overall proves mine -- in a pure hunter-gatherer
society without markets, there is no "wealth."

>But if you simply mean that markets are the chief means of commodity
>exchange for large, complex societies like ours, then I agree. But even
>then, social services such as schools, police and highway dept.'s are not
>'markets' in the strict sense used by liberal economists (classical or
>Keynesian).

Those social services, in most societies, do indeed interfere with the
free market, that's true. But perhaps, then, to that same extent, they
interfere with the development of wealth. Each of those services can be
run in a more market-oriented way, or a less market-oriented way.

>> Gold, for example, is just a chunk of metal unless you have a
>> market where you can trade it for something else. I'm not disputing that
>> you need a "safety net," a merciful society definitely needs charity.
>> However, that's not the same as automatically redistributing wealth.

>Charity is certainly a form of wealth redistribution. If reliance on charity
>alone could ensure a "safety net" (and, by extension, a stable, let alone
>"merciful", society), then other, less voluntaristic means of wealth
>redistribution (e.g. a combination of progressive income taxes and social
>programs) would be unnecessary. Experience (e.g. with what economists call
>the "free rider" syndrome) has proven otherwise.

First, I'm making what I see as an important technical / semantic point --
you aren't redistributing "wealth," you're eliminating "wealth." What
you're redistributing is cash, or goods. The recipients don't get "wealth"
they get "stuff." There's an important difference.

>...
>> I don't think the fact that the Torah requires tzedakah in any way lessens
>> an individual's responsibility to one's own children, or for one's own
>> finances. S*it happens, that's why you need tzedakah -- not to create and
>> support a permanent underclass. Tzedakah and the other Torah-proscribed
>> charities are a form of insurance, really -- and, just like with any other
>> insurance, doing an act with an intention of collecting on the insurance
>> is a form of fraud.

>In addition to what I just said above, we unfortunately cannot always depend
>upon an individual's responsibility to their own children, so it's in
>society's (including, if not especially, it's ruling class's) best interests
>to provide such insurance (which, btw, is not always so benevolent, as it
>includes public law enforcement and penal services).

To some degree yes, but you very quickly get into the zone where the
elites get to decide what's best for everyone. Socialism is inherently
patronistic, elitist, and un-free. It has to be, by definition.


--s
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism
    ... contrast of current and previous market systems. ... not economics. ... Changes in the Distribution of Wealth ... > A perfect example of impaired judgement, of emotion run amuck. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: A modest proposal
    ... to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely. ... how likely is it that shuffling around 1% of our GDP is likely to ... Think of the wealth that could ... Our country is built on competition and free will, not on taking money ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: A Little More Political Humor
    ... >> market probably wouldn't reward them for it. ... >> makes sense to simply require all or most of the population to fund them. ... >> a bit better in this country, I guess I'd point to Canada as the model. ... > wealth just keeps getting concentrated at the top is likely false. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT : American Athletes, the embarrassment of the world
    ... and talented souls populating this great country of ours. ... designed to separate wealth from the lower and middle classes, ... returns far superior to money stashed in mattresses. ... demanded by the market; ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: A Little More Political Humor
    ... folks wouldn't. ... > market probably wouldn't reward them for it. ... money and stifle more of your rights ... >>> If there were a very high estate tax, and wealth couldn't pool ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)