Insight

[unixronin]

A study that I came across via Chris Martenson set me to thinking somewhat about distribution of wealth, and I found myself with a comclusion that turns out to be able to be expressed in strikingly simple terms.

That conclusion is expressed in the following two simple statements:

Wealth should be shared fairly¹, but government cannot be trusted to do it or to oversee it.

Those who do honest labor must be able to reap the rewards of their labors, or there will be no incentive for them to labor.

Discuss.

[1]  Which does not mean "equally".  See the second point.

Comments

[ithildae]

Wealth comes from creating value for others.

Those who create the greatest value are the best at creating wealth, and they should be allowed to use the wealth they gain to do that. Whether through business or finance or industry or simply training others to be successful.

Government takings reduce the ability to create value.

[unixronin]

Indeed.

What I really wish we could get away from is the idea that accumulation of wealth for the sake of accumulation of wealth is a good thing, that your worth is not measured by anything you are, but by how much more you have piled in your cellar than everyone else. You can only eat just so many meals, only live in just so many houses before they become like private hotels you visit a couple of times a year but never actually settle into.

You can climb to the highest mountain by piling up other people and walking on their faces, or you can settle for a house half way up a small mountain and move ten thousand people from the swamps into the foothills. Which makes you the better person? Which is more a thing to be justly proud of?

[ithildae]

Wealth accumulates when you inherit it from daddy. People who create wealth tend to use it to create more wealth. Breaking down big piles of rotting money is only useful if it is not being used to build bigger piles somewhere else.

Money is dynamic. There is nothing bad about having large piles of it, it is just wasteful to not try to make the pile bigger. (It means you have stopped creating value for others.)

It is quite possible to make money without putting other people down. Those who build wealth should be allowed to use it for their priorities and goals. What I think it should be used for is not as important as their goals and purposes for accumulating the stuff in the first place. (That is my fundamental complaint with the Nanny State government, that my money should be taken from me because someone else has insufficient for their goals.)

Some of my proudest moments, concerning money, are helping others build some small pile of it for themselves. I have spent more than they have accumulated, but I have taught them how to go out and get more if they want it. The wealthy people I know have a similar mindset. (That is where I learned it from.) I know my experience is a statistically insignificant sample, but it still accounts for over two score people, enough to get off the t-test table.

[wyrdling]

if not the government, who?
and then, any institution or group or organization one chooses to oversee this process will de facto become a form of government.

[ithildae]

Why not you? Build up a pile of cash. Decide what you want to do with it and do it. If it is too much for you to do all by yourself, find some like-minded friends and do it together.

Government is for infrastructure and defense, where economies of scale make them most efficient. Social causes are best left to people. If it is that important, they can go get the money!

[wyrdling]

"If it is too much for you to do all by yourself, find some like-minded friends and do it together."

this is exactly how an economy of scale make these most efficient as well.

any structure that redistributes wealth gains social power from that process. this may not be literal institutional government, but it certainly is a de facto authority over all people connected to the process through the power given to it. not an absolute authority, sure, but there are no such things.
if a government raises money for the collective security, such as defense, or food security (many wars were fought over food security) or infrastructure, or preventing predations on its citizens, there are many "social causes" embedded in that process. i'm not sure where you'd want to draw the line.

[unixronin]

Economy of scale is only valid for certain things, and up to a certain point. Economy of scale almost invariably does NOT http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110221/wl_afp/philippinesvolcanoapply to managing/governing anything. Bureaucracy scales poorly: As it grows larger, one of two things have to happen - either individual tiers grow laterally beyond the ability of their managers to manage them effectively, or the management structure grows vertically, becoming more and more top-heavy as it adds more and more layers of management. Either way, the larger it grows, the larger the percentage of its budget is consumed by its bureaucratic overhead and wasted in inefficiency. That's what's happening in the US - our economy is staggering under the weight of the bureaucratic overhead of our government, and the endless regulations that all those bureaucrats feel they have to keep generating to justify their requested budgets.