I am not paying 20£ to read am article and i dont see an archive link, so i am flying blind but here goes: the fundamental problem with all these types of articles and so i assume also with this one is as follows: govermment is not better than private wealth, it is just a different group of assholes interfering in my life. Thr problem with all of them is the interference (abuse of market power in economic terms) so lets stop crying about people being successful amd instead target market power abuse. This means severely limiting government but also empowering government to much more easily break up market power abusing companies (i.e most of the s&p 500 plus a bunch of large private companies).
Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
591–600 of 660 posts
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#592Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent. I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker o…
It's just not practical to enforce a cap though. Even with a very authoritarian world government to stop people moving assets elsewhere, there'll be too many ways around it. So you can only have $15mil of assets? But your partner can have $15mil too, as can your kids, and parents. And if that's not enough, you can still try to hoard extra wealth in easier-to-hide forms - whether it's physical gold, bitcoin, art, fine…
Its not that its not practical as much as it is actively counterproductive to progress since the minimum effective size in many sectors is larger than that so you would end up force liquidating founders out of companies they start, which is a bad thing in for progress in mlst cases. You want quality founders to ma*ntain control and grow a business up to the point it starts abusing market power rather than innovating and that is often far beyond 15 mm valuation. Tje real problem is the market power and that is when heavy regulation and breakup should set in, not at some arbitrarily low asset limit.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
They infringe if they don't pay their share of what is needed to provide for the common welfare, defense, etc.
It's not "their share", it's your fantasy of getting part of their money that you're trying to impose. None of that money is yours to decide the fate of it.
How do we pay for the enormous amount of common public goods, such as roads, a legal system, safety, security, education, health, NASA, etc etc, if we don't jointly pay for them?
And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?
(I think we both are in good faith. No need to imply I'm a thief or oppressor.)
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find it, but I think pg also said something like "when you're 20 if you're not doing bad you feel good. When you're 50 if you're not doing good you feel bad."
Which seems like common sense. A 50yo has fewer years to with to save up for any retirement, they face age discrimination, increasing health issues, etc. A 20yo has many years to work and pivot on case of setbacks, less age discrimination, usually fewer health issues.
True. Makes me wonder if half of being famous is coming up with creative ways to say the obvious.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not proposing to cap anything. Please re-read the entire comment you're replying to, not just the first line.
My question was just following your "brainstorming". Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly: My point is that when you start arguing about capping and/or taxes you should take into account the concept of power, governments, and realpolitik into account. You can put a set of rules for handling corporate power (e.g. taxes) but those corporations could be really smart and move to another jurisdiction such as Ireland (…
move to another jurisdiction such as Ireland
The size tax should be applied to imports, just like VAT is.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "their share", it's your fantasy of getting part of their money that you're trying to impose. None of that money is yours to decide the fate of it.
How do we pay for the enormous amount of common public goods, such as roads, a legal system, safety, security, education, health, NASA, etc etc, if we don't jointly pay for them? And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay? (I think we both are in good faith. No need to imply I'm a thief or oppressor.)
That's a separate question. The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money. You can't just say "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed". There's nothing "fair" in this. It's not what "fair" means or ever meant. Especially given that Elon Musk is already paying for so much - and still you think it's "not fair" he doesn't pay more, with the sole foundation for this being that you want more.
> And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?
Yes, but despite them paying orders of magnitude more than you do, you still complain they don't pay their "fair share", the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more. I don't see any justification for claiming this has anything to do with "fair".
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we pay for the enormous amount of common public goods, such as roads, a legal system, safety, security, education, health, NASA, etc etc, if we don't jointly pay for them? And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay? (I think we both are in good faith. No need to imply I'm a thief or oppressor.)
That's a separate question. The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money. You can't just say "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed". There's nothing "fair" in this. It's not what "fair" means or ever meant. Especially given that Elon Musk is already paying for so much - and still y…
> The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I am the owner of your money, in fact. Hand it over. Post your BTC here (nobody else touch it, it's mine).
> "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed"
We are equal under the law and we all should pay for it, nobody treated differently.
> the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more.
When did I tell you what my basis was?
The image of Musk whining 'it's not fair' like a 6 year old is pretty incredible, but in fairness to Musk, someone else is doing it. But for reasons unknown - why are you advocating for this complete stranger?
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
The grandparent comment argues for "businesses [which] are democratic institutions" and a "hard cap" on wealth which will presumably be taken and distributed to people with less wealth, for the goal of "do[ing] substantial good". Ergo, arguing justice (FSVO justice) for society. As such, I am of the position that this is one of those rare situations where the term "social justice warrior" is meaningful and accurate.
I agree it’s accurate, but you said “these social justice warriors,” which made me figure you were doing more than referring to the author. It seems like the goal of invoking the term was to aid in your dismissal of the author’s positions by linking them to a derided stereotype of activists. If I’m wrong then I apologize.
If you think about it, Social Justice is objectively a good thing. Being "Woke" means to be aware the United States is a white supremacist society. These terms are used as if they were Ad Hominems, but they're kind of the opposite.
The people complaining about these things are literally self-identifying themselves as the bad guy. We're not making you use these words. We're not making you self-identify as the bad guy. We didn't put the rake there, but they're proudly stomping on it anyways.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand how you can assume catastrophic intent on my part however, that’s not the case. In no revolution are the poorest and weakest persons ever benefited it’s only typically been to the benefit of some small group they just recycles hands so in fact, the last thing I want is some kind of hard break. No, I’m an anarcho syndicalist. Which is a gradual reappropriation of the means to worker collectives slowly…
Sorry for the mischaracterization. Your position sounds interesting. When it comes to how the means of production should be structured, I envision a microkernel kind of model: enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever, and let the dice fall where they may. If it's worker collectives that result as the optimum, so be it.
No worries, most people see “anarchist” and think violence because propaganda works unfortunately. Anyway…
“enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever“
This assumes a lot about the foundational structure of the environment these agents are operating within
Unless you address who reaps the benefits of commerce then its just the same situation with slightly different tyrants
What you describe is precisely the structure of what exists now - but you’re not satisfied with the rates
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain how to reconcile these two things: “ if some minerals are discovered on your heretofore low value land” And “ creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services” Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? How did the land to acquire become yours? Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to thi…
It incentivizes people to find minerals that are valuable to the public. You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land.
That doesn’t answer any of my questions though on how the assignment of creation happens