These videos are really good, I swear I learn more watching these 5 minutes videos than I do in an entire government politics lesson at college. Obviously these videos can't prepare me for an exam situation, but they are definitely more clearer and just as informative.
Keep in mind that unemployment refers specifically to people looking for a job but being unable to find one. Those who do not need to work are not included in the unemployment rate. It's no secret that the amount of work required to achieve the same standard of living has gone down over the decades. I'd argue that money would be necessary unless we were to read a point of post-scarcity. As it is though, I'd say money is required for the sake of large-scale organization.
@@ericrodwell8706 Yes, the idea is good! I usually say that we have already lived in Ancapistan and the states in the form of government is the great Hobbesian leviathan that just grows and that parasites us by robbing us through taxes ... it is only to perish around us ... everything that the market / or voluntary exchanges provided us with unprecedented wealth ... while on the other hand we see everything the government promises us to offer many times even written on paper scribbled by them that they call the constitution and that only serves when they suit them , the aristocracy ... I don't even have to go very deeply to know that states in the form of governments were the biggest cause of all the atrocities of modern times ... I am a free market anarchist and we sacramentalize agorist private property with the refinement of gradualism in technology and internet 3.0 format ... also a student and enthusiast of the austrian school of economics i can confirm that the current economic system based on policy decisions will collapse in some time ... where and these bureaucrats want to solve economic problems in the pen and econometries taken from the back ... in short, yes, any way of trying to eliminate the leviathan is plausible of acceptance even using less the dollar fiat currency backed by political honesty, that we know doesn't exist! use bitcoin ... -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Democracy allows A and B to come together to steal C. This is not justice, it is a moral outrage. Democracy practically guarantees that only bad and dangerous men will reach the top of the government. Conflicts are not inevitable. However, it is absurd to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state that first makes conflict inevitable and permanent. No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive strength and subjugation. It evolved without a contractual basis, like a mob of protective gangsters. And about everyone's struggle against everyone: this is a myth. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a mild variant of communism and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken over by anything else. by HANS-HERMANN HOPPE
You all prolly dont give a shit but does any of you know of a tool to log back into an instagram account? I was stupid lost the login password. I would appreciate any tips you can give me
@Colin Brandon Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
5:20 "If you create a minimal state, it will never stay minimal. A minimal state is unstable." That's fascinating. I've noticed this trend in other places too. Consider Chromebooks: When they were first released, their big selling point was that they were simple and cheap. Fast forward to today, and they are much more feature-rich and also more expensive. It seems to be sort of a side effect of capitalism- As the market grows, it naturally wants to take everything that touches it with it. If you want to keep something minimal/limited, you must have a plan in place to ensure that growth is controlled. But is that possible? If we had managed to maintain an extremely limited government (think constitutional), where would our country be today? It's a relatively recent trend that the size and reach of the government has caused massive inefficiency and impediment of progress. We've red-taped ourselves into a corner.
Though I disagree with some of the opinions stated in this video, I appreciate this opportunity of listening to different opinions which may inspire my reasoning in the future. Great job, LearnLiberty.
2½/2 *Since we're anarcho-capitalist land mass, all defense forces would be privately funded and ran, making said business quite a bit more efficient than any state's military. ** -No irrational restrictions on firearm ownership. -No taxation allows for a more prosperous economic environment. -No governmental regulation on firearms would cause both the production and distribution cost to drop dramatically. All amounting to a tremendous drop in the price of firearms for the consumer!
3. The question here is not whether it is just to give help to the vulnerable but whether it is right to use the coercive means of taxation to take wealth from other's to finance this. In the absence of the state it is of course impossible for the state to provide for them, so it would be down to voluntary action - this could come from charitable giving as you mention but also individuals could take out insurance such that if they were ever badly injured they would be looked after.
1. There would be no state in the monopoly sense, however those functions of the state that can be considered legitimate - i.e those that do not initiate force - would be carried out on a competitive basis, the courts system, for example, would be replaced with private arbitrators that could settle disputes and security would be carried out by private contractors that might be hired by an individual to defend his home or perhaps everyone in a neighbourhood would share the costs of a contract
Although Afghanistan is extremely far from an An-Cap society, their decentralized power structure has resulted in them never being defeated. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timur, The British Empire, the USSR, and maybe even the US have failed to take it.
All I've pointed out was that capitalism doesn't imply a lack of hierarchy, and other than that I've only been talking about the word "anarchy." I personally do not refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, but I don't really care if other people do.
2. Invasion has always operated by seizing control of an existing power structure, if an army were to attempt to invade an area with no state, however, there would be no taxation and control infrastructure to take - everything would have to be created anew, an invading army would also have to deal with the resistance of private security contractors, it could not simply march in unopposed. Invasion poses a much greater threat to a society with a state than to an an-cap society
I have a couple of questions. 1) What is to stop big business using private militias to seize power and create a Government? 2) How does criminal justice take place? Or does it? 3) How can anarchy be a good thing, surely with the deterrence of crime through legislation, people will let their instinctive desires for violence and greed take control. How can civilization exist with this mentality? 4) Surely no Government = No foreign policy. What's to stop an invasion of the anarchist state from another country? Thanks.
+SociallyDemocratic 1) What is to stop big business using private militias to seize power and create a Government? Competitors. If they try to do that, they will lose a lot of customers. Not to mention, violence is incredible expensive. Not to mention that most people probably own guns and won't be too keen on the idea. 2) How does criminal justice take place? Or does it? You wrong me, I take you to a private arbitration court, you pay me compensation or get ostracized. 3) How can anarchy be a good thing, surely with the deterrence of crime through legislation, people will let their instinctive desires for violence and greed take control. How can civilization exist with this mentality? "People are violent so we need to give a group of people a monopoly on violence and pray that they don't abuse it." 4) Surely no Government = No foreign policy. What's to stop an invasion of the anarchist state from another country? Militias and armed citizens. Yamamoto, a Japanese Admiral in WW2 said: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” (www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863620/posts) He wasn't afraid of the US military, but of the armed citizens of the US.
+SociallyDemocratic 1) The people and private corporations paid by the people. You don't want to mess around when everybody has a gun. It would be pretty much impossible to invade a territory unless the force is incredibly overwhelming, you just have to know some history to know that. 2) Private courts. Nothing new. 3) That is bullshit, you are using the same argument that fundamentalists say to atheists: If there is no God, where do your morals come from? Therefore, you have no morals. It's very easy to see why that argument makes no sense. 4) See point number 1. But you are wrong in the part that no foreign policy can be archieved with no government anyway.
I wouldn't say it's "protecting their rights" since I don't consider intellectual property or socializing the losses of private firms to be rights. For why I don't think monopolies can come into being in the first place, as well as why they wouldn't be maintainable if they did, I'll recommend this: /watch?v=PSIUkKnGYP0 If you don't want to listen to it, then you can read the .pdf in the video description.
If you liked this video, I would highly suggest checking out philosopher Stefan Molyneux's RU-vid channel and website Freedomain Radio. He has wonderful arguments for the necessity of Anarcho-Capitalism and how destructive the initiation of force is. /user/stefbot?ob=0&feature=results_main
I would more say David Friedman's position is based around efficiency, both of them believe in consequences when you have a state instead of anarcho-capitalism
he also forgot to mention that it is legitimate to use force in defense of another if that person is in a position where it would be legitimate for him to use force to defend himself.
Further, I would define government as a regional sovereign of legitimized coercion; what makes it different from voluntary/market associations is that it may initiate force in any given area without the surrounding populace concluding that it should be held to the same standard as ordinary citizenry. What this translates into is an institution which can force you to pay into it's budget, and prevent you from taking that same money elsewhere.
Not the way you imagine them. Hoarding money is irrational; people save so that they can consume later on (unless they just like how money looks for some reason). All economic fallacy. “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” ― Murray N. Rothbard
Monsanto gets limited liability (they're not held responsible if their stuff kills you), patent protection (you can't plant their seeds), barriers to entry to keep out competitors, etc.
I would emphasize that the non-coercive axiom (or non-aggression principle as anarcho-capitalists more commonly call it these days) treats property as an extension of self - hence it is entirely legitimate to use force to defend your property against force or other acts of aggression. Rothbard justified the treatment of property as an extension of self based on a natural rights argument - whereby it was legitimate to aquire previously unowned goods, e.g a mine, by "mixing them with your labour"
The markets of developed nations in the West have become more regulated over the past 50 years, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They've become freer in places like China and India, and you do in fact see greater wealth and a more equitable distribution when you compare it to the situation of those areas prior to such market liberalization.
I have a question for you Anarcho-Capitalists: Why do you want to incorporate anarchism (which this ideology is misrepresenting) with capitalism, when the current state provides any way for a capitalist to exploit the people that you need?
1/2 To answer your first question: Think of it this way: what's the path of least resistance for the leadership of a state seeking to gain new territory and revenue? To fight a public sector military, simply replace the current government, and tax a people unarmed and already accustomed to being coerced?
It doesn't matter that a total free market does not exist. You can still plot all existing economies in order to find patterns and make predictions. As I've already stated, the gap is larger and economic freedom is in decline, which confirms my hypothesis.
My main problem with the non-aggression principle is that oftentimes, parenting involves the control a coercion of the child in order to ensure that the child matures in such a way as to be a moral citizen. For instance, to keep the child from playing a game too frequently, even if it is one the child has purchased with the child's own money (or, more frequently, given as a gift, perhaps from a relative) the parent must apply force to secure the device. Is this wrong? The N-A principle says yes.
You're right that it isn't anarchy since, historically, the term has been used to mean no hierarchy. However, to claim that it'll result in a despotic plutocracy is a baseless assertion, likely stemming from a general misunderstanding of how markets operate. Also, using arguments based around rights are uninteresting. Show people that your system is efficient, not that it is moral.
Interestingly, Milton Friedman came to the view that the legitimate source of public revenue is the rent of land, as argued by Henry George late in the 19th century. Friedman did not explore the moral implications of this argument that I am aware of. He seems to have reached his position on the basis of economic efficiency. However, what Henry George was arguing the case for was a labor and capital goods basis of property. Thus, George saw the taxation of wages and returns to capital goods as a confiscation of legitimate private property. At the same time, failure on the part of the community to collect the full potential annual rental value of locations (and land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum or other natural assets with an inelastic supply) as an unjust private confiscation of a public asset. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A. Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
Humanity does not collectively possess some legitimate claim to all land. The earth is not rightly the common property of all people. Ownership originates with the transformation of natural goods into the products of man, and the earth is not such. If you homestead a farm, that farm is a product of you, and not of humanity collectively, therefore only you have any claim to it, and for anybody to demand you pay them for the "privilege" of developing and owning what rightly belonged to nobody previously, would simply be criminal aggression akin to carjacking.
@@jakemccauley4724 The economics of land markets provide the answer. A square foot of land in the central business district of New York City has a potential rental value many times what a square foot of land will lease for in a rural community. Highest, best use of the site in NYC is a high-rise office tower or condominium building. The further one gets from the central business district of any MSA the land values will drop off. The values have everything to do with the quality of public goods and services available and the demand by people and businesses to occupy locations -- and not by what any individual holder of land does or does not do with the land. Under our system of ownership, an owner is not required to engage in "the transformation of natural goods into the products of man" in order to satisfy law. The widespread under-taxation of land values encourages the acquisition and holding of land not for development but for speculation. A great deal of land even in cities is held vacant for years or decades because the financial costs of doing so are low. Two parcels of land adjacent to each other in a city are likely assessed at very different values. The parcel with a high-rise buildings on it is likely to be assessed at multiples of the adjacent vacant lot.
@@nthperson I wish to abolish both all "public" (tax funded) services, and all land titles based solely on governmental decree rather than transformation.
I respect Rothbard, but I disagree with his methodology since I don't accept praxeology and don't believe in natural rights. I prefer Friedman's consequentialist arguments, and agree with his proposed system of law (Rothbard believed in private rights enforcement agencies all using an agreed-upon common law, while Friedman argues for a legal system where laws are determined between each pair of rights enforcement agencies and therefore have different legal codes for different pairs of people.).
The child is in the home of the parent and is thus using the parent's property; the video game will presumably be in a console connected to a television and, even if the child owns both of these, it is still being run off the parent's electricity, again their property. Now, if the parent tells the child to stop playing this game and the child refuses it is aggressing against the parent's property rights - the parent is not initiating force but responding to agression and is consistent with N-A
I can see property as an extension of self because we own our own lives, & as life is self sustaining and self generating action, to sustain the lives that we own (as opposed to being dependent slaves) is to earn/buy private property. However, categorizing a recalcitrant child using a gaming console as aggression is hyperbole at best IMO. Rather it makes more sense to say that since parents are legal guardians of their children, said children don't have the full scope of rights that adults have.
That quote is often used by minarchists in their practical, reluctant support of a government. The fallacy, though, is vigilance is a zero-sum game. Vigilance against the state, in favor over self-defense is equally vigilant, or even more so.
But the US cannot claim ownership, only individuals can own things not abstract entities such as the state - more importantly the Rothbardian justification of property rights through homesteading allows an individual to take some unowned property and begin using it productively, making it his by mixing it with his labour, but an individual cannot just take a large swathe of land on the intention that it might be of use later. And much of this land belonged to native Americans at the time anyway.
"Not 'historically' been used to mean no hierarchy." You're arguing semantics. All words are defined by their historical use; I was agreeing with you. However, it wasn't deliberately chosen to mislead people. It was chosen because the person who coined it probably didn't understand the historical context. My point is that you cannot make a moral argument when talking to somebody with different values. You have to show them that your system works instead of describing _your_ morals.
The logical conclusion of liberty, freedom and capitalism is Anarcho-Capitalism or voluntaryism. Look at my chaos theory videos for defense and law and see how this can be dome more effectively and efficiently in a stateless society.
One tiny problem, Dr. Ashford confuses the number of people employed in private security with the scope of private security. In actuality the jurisdiction of private security forces is extremely small when compared to public.
With more personnel they could easily provide services for all currently state "protected" areas with much greater ease, efficiency and accountability, so i think thats a rather moot point.
I think one tell-tell warning sign where anarcho-libertarianism is concerned is the prolific use of hyperbolic phrases. Virtually every system with rules is deemed the use of "violence", even when there is no current violence occurring.
Included in the term violence, or force, is threats. Government usually threatens first, to keep the direct use of physical violence to a minimum. And do they ever threaten!
Very well reasoned, but ultimately I still think that minarchism based on the preservation of natural rights is the way to go. That being said, I do think that there are some major changes needed in what constitutes a limited government.
You misunderstand what I said, whether or not their terrorist activity is a justified response - I do not believe it is, though it is irrelevant to the point I made - it would not be happening were it not for the actions of the State.
You exhibit here something I have noticed in all of your other replies to my comments which is a tendency to argue against a modified version of what I have said. Using a game console is not agression in itself, but using the property of another in a way that is contrary to their wishes is agression and this example would involve the child agressing by refusing to obey the wishes of the rightful owner of the property they are using (the house, the electricity etc.)
Thank you for your response. I am still skeptical of the an-cap position, but I appreciate the information. My biggest concern is that you don't always face rational enemies, i.e. radical terrorists. However, a diversity of political ideas is usually good.
What chance would a single army have over an entire nation of armed civilians and private security forces? Why do the majority of conflicts in contemporary times utilize "private contractors" and mercenaries? Because theyre more efficient.
I like anarcho capitalism, but I'm not fully convinced. What about morality? I am for living and letting others live, but some actions are just morally wrong.
Andrew Olding Simple: What about things like child prostitution? Hopefully no one is arguing that should be allowed. How would such sick behavior be punished in an anarcho-capitalistic society?
Andrew Olding That brings up another question I have about anarcho-capitalism. Who would uphold the non-aggression principle? What is to stop socialists or Muslims from taking over the power vacuum and implementing their will on the rest of us? These are just a few of the problems I have with an otherwise appealing political philosophy.
You might find this interesting. I illustrated a David Friedman talk in which he summarizes how a polycentric legal order could work under stateless conditions:The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary
Andrew Olding Also, there's no stopping those people from setting up their own society where they could establish a socialist / communist state. It probably would not last very long, as people could quite easily compare living standards within their little collectivist paradise to that outside it, and subsequently leave, post haste.
i like the idea of anarcho-capitalism on a small scale, but i think that once it's applied to a large country (such as the u.s.), that that's where it falls apart. companies and corporations have a long history of screwing people over, and i think there needs to be something other than the market to keep the corporations in check.
Government is not a tool that keeps corporations in check, it is nothing but a giant gun for the highest bidder through which major financial interests may wield unparalleled power against everyone else. That is all a monopoly on force could ever possibly be, regardless of some scribbles on parchment pretending it will be limited. Scale doesn't favor the state either, we see government at a large scale, it causes hundreds of millions of peaceful people to be slaughtered, caged, and otherwise persecuted.
They are good questions and I have made my best attempt to condense answers to them into youtube's 500 character limit (not easy for me!) If you are interested in learning more about anarcho-capitlism I would recommend you take a look at Lew Rockwell's website (just google the name, youtube won't let me post links) - Lew was one of Rothbard's friends and contemporaries and the founder of the Ludwig Von Mises institute, also a good author.
That sounds suspiciously similar to tacit consent. Could not the government claim something similar. that government has A Proiri right over the land through initial attainment (US annexed the land first, and then opened it up to settlement via contract) or use social contract+tacit to justify abridgment of property right?
If there ever was such a threat, I think a privately funded military with the power, technology and efficiency of a truly capitalist system would be an unstoppable force.
2¾/2 ***Look at the loyalty to economically and morally detrimental states people possess. Imagine if people had an actually BENEFICIAL political philosophy, that they could easily see as both morally and economically superior to all other(landmasses)! Look at the conviction nationalistic conservative Americans posses, and then imagine that dedication, that energy, harnessed for a belief that one can always win a debate with.
Your argument seems to be quite absurd - there is nothing in what I said that implies the parent must resent the child. On what basis do you think that the parent has the right to tell the child what to do?
Yes - if it is legitimate to exercise force in a situation it is legitimate to threaten to exercise force conditionally on that situation - e.g to tell a housebreaker that they will be shot if they don't leave - however it is not legitimate to threaten force in response to an action that is non-aggressive - e.g it is agression to go into a grocery store and tell them I would shoot them unless they handed over the money in the till, and the state, when taxing, does something very similar
Of course money has no direct-use value. It exists as a medium of exchange, not as a good to be consumed. I know of no society in history larger than a few hundred that has been able to grow and prosper without some form of currency, and while I'd like to believe that it would be possible to abolish money, live in harmony, etc. I can't see it happening.
Anarchism is historically a left wing and socialist offshoot.. Closely related to the socialist tradition.. It was co-opted in the form of "libertarianism" in the 70s/80s in america .. Libertarian and anarchism were used interchangeably in Europe for millenia
Good things humans can adapt and overcome. Anarchism is a lack of rulers. Just because that starting point can present multiple ways that humans will self-organize doesn't invalidate anything.
This is the one school of thought I have not looked into thoroughly. Could anyone answer a few questions? 1. Under this, there would be no government whatsoever? 2. What if we were invaded? 3. Are all severely mentally ill and handicapped left to the will of charity? Bear with me. I'm not asking these to try and undermine people's views. I am just curious. (:
Do you honestly believe that the welfare system and other social safety nets that our government currently provide are better and more efficient than could be achieved via private funding and actual engaged communties?
Ment on Rothbard on violence only in case of self defence. Maybe I'm anarchy tinted. But such as 'evil' or whatever defining description, it's weak N stupid N power ocd lack of alternative competitive methods.
Isn't freedom just another word for nothing left to loose? Spending so much time and money trying to disable democracy seems like a rather odd way to "Learn Liberty". If we have to be taught liberty then either it must not come naturally to us or the sponsors of this video believe we are incapable of deciding what the word means left to our own devices. I am a little suspicious of the notion that laissez-faire economics in and of itself extends a franchise of liberty to us in the absence of popular sovereignty as this video would suggest.
1. We are, and always have been, in Saudi Arabia by invitation of the king. 2. A sane interpretation of the Koranic holy land is Mecca, not what is currently deemed the entire nations of Saudi Arabia. 3. Blaming America for the terrorist extremist group Al Quaeda's disagreement with the ideas and opinions of the King of the house of Saud is ridiculous.
Actually Islamic extremist responses are irrational on many levels. To say that they would have no beef with America were we not in foreign countries, (Iraq was not Islamic BTW), IMO isn't supportable. After all, we're talking about people who rioted in the streets and attacked foreign embassies in several continents over published cartoons in a free Danish press. (Including fake cartoons that were never published.)
Private security firms would be just as able to deal with threats from terrorists. It is also the case that most terrorism in today's world is a response to US and NATO activities in the arab world - Al Quaeda was founded as a response to "occupation of the holy land" (which referred to the troops posted in Saudi Arabia as part of US foreign policy) Though I don't support the killing of civilians for any reason it must be realised that the Al Quaeda threat would not exist absent the State
if your interested these videos are, in my opinion, the best place to start. how could a voluntary society function (/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak); law with out government (/playlist?list=PL1647CADF96760B37);
So, it's not your kid's home? If you seriously tell someone that you have a say-so over their lives because of the commodities they use, like telling a kid what you just told me about electricity, they'll come to the conclusion that you resent them using "your" electricity and in turn resent them and their presence in "your" home. Sorry, but I see the principle you're espousing as intellectually and morally defunct.
YES! Eureca! I walk away W the morals previously mom confiscated coz them spoiled brats being mankind couldn't play nice. Someone echoed writings in stone hearts on the actual rights N wrongs as if indisputable certainty. Thanx R. :P
The video I linked has sources in it. You're asserting that I have no evidence, yet I've shown some; I've provided sources that confirm my initial claim. All you've been doing is making assertion after assertion based on a shaky theory about human action that lacks any proper empirical backing. When I say take an economics course, I am not saying so out of a sense of superiority. I'm seriously telling you to because your arguments are ridiculous. Please do not respond. I am done here.
so there would have to take voluntary actions for themselves. Very Cool! but i really dont think that is likely, In today's society there are Many [Democrats] who are freeloaders and would never go up in arms against anything and assume everyone else will be taking care of it...Im sure you share this pain with me.
Blah blah blah, semantics. This isn't important. Call it what you want. "Because what we see today is not the government's fault." False. Income distribution becomes more unequal as economic freedom declines. Here's some of the common misconceptions about economic freedom: learnliberty. org/videos/what%E2%80%99s-so-great-about-economic-freedom Take an economics class; I'm finished arguing.
Part 1 I can tell that you've never read the Koran, or have read it buffet style. Here's an example: 4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, & because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them & banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them..
To be honest I feel like I'm the only person here who would actually like to live in an anarcho-capitalist society just to see what type of human rights violations will happen in the name of "Deus salve a ganância" which is Portuguese for "God Save The Greed". To be honest out all the Anarchy societies, I would choose Anarcho-capitalist, because at least you know for sure that 10% of people in that society are going to be Rich and do the most greedy business practices and personally I would probably find that hilarious and absolutely terrifying.
People who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" don't even know what "anarcho" means. "Anarchy" comes from the word "anarchos" which means without rulers. How does that make any sense whatsoever in a system where you have bosses and wage serfs?
***** Well the choices are: be a mindless worker cog for a boss, be very poor on welfare or starve. (Most countries in the world its either work like a dog or just starve). Not much of choice.
***** First of all, substantial promotion is rare. Working life is such that most people can barely make ends meet, let alone try to work up the hierarchy. Your idea of taking another course is not financially sound because of the obscene amount of debt that comes with university education. When it comes to wealth transfer, a tiny fraction is due to anomalous social mobility. Most is due to inheritance. The main issue is that exploited people having a small chance to work up towards being able to exploit others themselves does not justify exploitation. The nature of an economic capitalist hierarchy is such that the majority of the people are always near the bottom of it, regardless people moving across the hierarchy. Why not create a system that eliminates hierarchy so most people don't have to live sub-par lives?
+Arman M your perspectives are coloring your viewpoint socialist. Think of a world with no minimum wage that has higher wages than we do today. if you can understand that duality (that is not an oxymoron) to begin to understand the power of the free market.
Arman M equality is a virtue compared to what? At the cost of what? Total application of equality as a virtue means billions have to die because they're unequal. As for an example - does everyone where you live earn just the minimum wage? Do some people earn more? If so, why?
