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

In article <1136391284.062072.183600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Rafael <jmalfatto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dpgqpt$jc9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> 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."

>I doubt that a hunter-gatherer would agree, but, then, your definition
>of
>"wealth" seems to be alot narrower than your definition of "market"
>(which
>seems to include even moneyless forms of reciprocal exchange).

>[BTW, I recommend Jared Diamond's explanation (see the chapter "From
>Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" in Guns, Germs, and Steel) of why, for
>practical reasons, societies larger than hunter-gatherers (e.g. tribal
>chiefdoms) had to supplement reciprocal exchange with redistributive
>measures in order to remain stable.]

One could achieve stability if there were no external
forces, but the chief often had to be on the alert to
avoid being overthrown. This required people of better
ability (of whatever kind needed) to be the chief, and
a good chief had to have good assistants when required.

As is the case in any evolutionary process, this did not
always work; the one who could become chief might make
a poor chief, and be difficult to overthrow.

>> 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.

>Yes, and I guess my point here is that I don't share the orthodox
>position
>that the more market-oriented way is always the best way.

>From a logical point of view, the market-oriented way
cannot be the best way. But there is no best way.
This paradox MUST be faced. So one solution is to
decentralize as much as possible, and not try to find
the best way, or even to assume one can come close.

>...
>> 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.

>See above. I suspect we're working with different term definitions.

In many African tribes, wealth is stuff. That we have
a more portable means of exchange does not make it any
different. A person's wealth is not the amount of money
he can control, but includes other aspects.

>> 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.

>The only check against elitism that I'm aware of is democracy. It makes
>for
>a messy situation, but I resigned myself to the reality that life is
>messy a
>long time ago.

What is wrong with elitism? Without it, mankind can only
regress. The Athenians had very little of it, and this
did not do them that much good. Except for their ten
elected strategoi, all positions were allocated by lot
among the male citizens. Is everyone equally qualified
to be a customs officer?

Now this did not apply to education and commerce. The
government did not decide who did what, and you could be
sure that only the best artists were used to construct
the Parthenon and other public and private buildings.

What do you have in a democracy? Look at our "educational"
system; it is based on the idea that all should get the
same education. Not on the idea that all should have the
same opportunity, but to get the same results. And we are
besieged by proposals to have a "health system" so that all
will get the same health care, although there is no way
that there can be enough health care to go around. Also,
by making it "free", nobody takes responsibility. So the
wealthy, whose time is valuable, get WORSE care. Is that
a good idea?

The Rabbinic system is an elite system. A sound academic
system must be an elite system. We do not complain when
elite athletes are better paid than the average person;
why should we complain elsewhere? Ochlocracy, which is
what democracy becomes, is as totalitarian as anything
else, and the mob does not fear overthrow by themselves.

>Rafael



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.