1) The state is a gang with good PR. It's entitled to nobody's money. No one has to justify keeping the fruit of their own labor, (be it creative or physical).
2) Moving on from anarchist political theory and into economics, if people have more money they spend it. They create a market for stupid luxuries? Guess who makes the stupid luxuries? Poorer people who now have a steady check. Guess who sells the stupid luxuries? Middle class merchants who can now provide job. Now everybody's making money and giving the parasitical state its cut at every level.
I know rich people. They're not villains. Most of them are pretty damn boring. They just wear clothes with a higher thread count and drink more expensive wine while they're being as boring as everyone else.
So.... You're proposing a zero tax economy? With no public infrastructure works or repairs? So, who pays for their upkeep? Local voluntary contributions? Do you really think that would work? Plus, no Social Security, no Medicaid, privately funded police & fire service, no regulation (of anything), no standardisation (of anything), plus a million other things - gone. I *really* don't think that would work somehow! Do you think a lack of regulation or government involvement would result in people keeping the 'fruit of their labour' or would it just result in starvation 'wages'?
Certainly, if you or I had more money we'd probably spend it. A few thousand a year extra in our pockets could mean replacing old appliances and so on. But a few extra million in a billionaires pocket would probably go to their off-shore account. 'Trickle-down' is a complete myth. The super-rich might buy the odd trinket and hide it away in a safe deposit box but I doubt if the purchase of a Renoir or a Lamborghini will feed the 99%. Plus, of course, we don't simply exist to service THEM. Feudalism DIED a *long* time ago - thankfully.
I'm impressed that you know rich people. I certainly don't. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen one who wasn't on TV (usually complaining about something). Agreed that most of them aren't villains. I imagine that quite a few of them were born into wealth. The others might even remember what it was like not to be rich and tip their waitress generously. But I don't think that the answer to any of the worlds problems is to give rich people more money. Quite the reverse actually....
2 comments:
1) The state is a gang with good PR. It's entitled to nobody's money. No one has to justify keeping the fruit of their own labor, (be it creative or physical).
2) Moving on from anarchist political theory and into economics, if people have more money they spend it. They create a market for stupid luxuries? Guess who makes the stupid luxuries? Poorer people who now have a steady check. Guess who sells the stupid luxuries? Middle class merchants who can now provide job. Now everybody's making money and giving the parasitical state its cut at every level.
I know rich people. They're not villains. Most of them are pretty damn boring. They just wear clothes with a higher thread count and drink more expensive wine while they're being as boring as everyone else.
So.... You're proposing a zero tax economy? With no public infrastructure works or repairs? So, who pays for their upkeep? Local voluntary contributions? Do you really think that would work? Plus, no Social Security, no Medicaid, privately funded police & fire service, no regulation (of anything), no standardisation (of anything), plus a million other things - gone. I *really* don't think that would work somehow! Do you think a lack of regulation or government involvement would result in people keeping the 'fruit of their labour' or would it just result in starvation 'wages'?
Certainly, if you or I had more money we'd probably spend it. A few thousand a year extra in our pockets could mean replacing old appliances and so on. But a few extra million in a billionaires pocket would probably go to their off-shore account. 'Trickle-down' is a complete myth. The super-rich might buy the odd trinket and hide it away in a safe deposit box but I doubt if the purchase of a Renoir or a Lamborghini will feed the 99%. Plus, of course, we don't simply exist to service THEM. Feudalism DIED a *long* time ago - thankfully.
I'm impressed that you know rich people. I certainly don't. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen one who wasn't on TV (usually complaining about something). Agreed that most of them aren't villains. I imagine that quite a few of them were born into wealth. The others might even remember what it was like not to be rich and tip their waitress generously. But I don't think that the answer to any of the worlds problems is to give rich people more money. Quite the reverse actually....
Post a Comment