- Capitalism and Alternatives -

More stuff.

In Reply to: stuff posted by Gee on July 16, 1999 at 21:07:37:

I think you are all missing the critical issue, which is not whether the child deserves the wealth he inherits, but whether the creator of that wealth has the right to bestow it on his offspring, or if not, whether some 'authority' deriving from the people can do it for him. This issue is one that is far more questionable, and is at the key of all these wealth re-distribution schemes.

Again this falls under the heading of 'acceptible separation of the public and private spheres'. At what point does my wealth make claims on the public sphere that are actionable by state authority? If my wealth represents political power and privilege (which is, after all, the incentive for my accumulation of it in the first place), at what point does the claim of 'equal opportunity' take precedence? Or, more ominously, if we discard the incentive of privileged progeny, will this unduly affect the present urge towards profit and productivity prevalent amongst capitalists? So long as some means are made for talented members of the poor to enter the economic game (college financial aid, company-sponsored apprenticeship scholarships on the German model, etc.), I would personally be against this rather intrusive 'scheme'. It is still a fact that there is no replacement for talent; as P.T. Barnum once said, 'A fool and his money are soon parted.' The record of businesses run successfully by the founder, only to be squandered and ruined by the son (or son-in-law) is practically part of folklore. There is no need for special legislation in this regard, for again, the market itself has a remedy that is most adequate.

"Doc" Cruel

Follow Ups:

• youre right Gee July 20 1999 (0)