- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on July 16, 1999 at 21:07:37:

In Reply to: More on posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on July 16, 1999 at 03:15:34:

: I probably should have added this to the thread below, but I wanted to post this in a more public forum for others to participate.

Glad i spotted it then, as it appears to follow mine and RDs discussion.

: You claim that it's unfair to the rich baby whop inherits wealth, educational advamntages, good health care, etc. to take stuff away from him to equalize it fro everyone else. You referred, I think, to "hobbling" the rich kid to make evryone else run faster.

Rather than being 'unfair' I said that to do it youve got to force it to happen, because the family will resist you, added to this is the fact that from the legitimate viewpoint of the child - your just lowering him for no apparent purpose, like a punishment without crime, for the 'original sin' of being born into a rich family.

: Leaving aside the question fo whether the rich must lose their privileges to help uplift the poor.

I agree thats an area worthy of discussion, I think people who 'want it now' would have to do alot of messing about with people, more patient ones might try to build more.

: In some things like education, I find thsi highly quetsionable- tehre's no reason why we can't educate EVRYONE at a high level.

Sure about that? What if some parents gave extra tuition and some didnt (or uncles, your cousing, etc etc)

: Earlier on you conceded that the rich babies do not deserve their good fortune, any more than the poor deserve their misery. I think you said it was "neither justice nor injustice" that they were well-off.

I wasnt coneding, as if I had earlier suggested they did 'deserve' it, I was saying that their birth status is as natural to them as their hair color.

: If I do not "deserve" something, then I have no claim on it.

Hence the point, that to change it you must mess about with resistent parents and remove from the child things which he perceives as being 'his' in the same sense as he perceives his ability to run around as being his. Children dont wake up and say "golly mom you must have worked hard for all this' they perceive it all as 'environment' and would wonder why you insisted on making it worse. It wasnt an argument saying they deserved it.

The tale you tell actually supports the above, when the kid grabs it 'as a twist of fate' you are not angry at him. Nor then, is the child who 'by twist of fate' is born into a poor family.

:"Theft" means that perosn A is entitled to something but person B takes possession. but who can teh baby be "entitled" to something if they didn't do anything to deserve it?

Its parents stuff and the dispose of it as they wish, they might even gift the child $50k when they become 18.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup