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

[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.