“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.
Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?
Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification. [/quote]
On the one hand I sympathize with your arguments as they are superficially compelling. But there are two big problems with your general position.
First – and we can thank Nassim Taleb for his analysis here – you assume that most wealthy people earned their wealth purely as a result of hard work, and that – conversely – most poor people ended up in their position because they were unwilling to work hard. That is, luck – or “randomness” – did not play a major role in either. This is demonstrably false. In fact, a huge part of anyone’s success (or lack thereof) can be attributed to randomness. Now, I will agree with Reagan’s observation that “the harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but luck plays a big role in anyone’s outcome. If you were to pick a group of highly successful people and write down all of the things they did to become successful, you’d be able to find a much larger group of people who did all of those same things and did NOT reach the same level of success. Again, Nassim Taleb has done the world a favor by debunking the notion that many successful people hold that they “achieved it all by working hard and taking risks.” Sure, working hard and risk-taking are critical components of success… but the economic backyard is FILLED with folks who are smart, hardworking and took risks… who are wholly unsuccessful. The difference between these two groups is – to a meaningful (although not entire, of course) extent – the result of luck.
[A thought experiment. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet. The vast majority of them were born into abject poverty. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $3/day and other than survival these folks have very few prospects in their lives. Now, look around yourself and tell me how much your “hard work” has played into your ultimate success relative to everyone else on this planet. Answer: not much. You were born into a situation in which “success” – as we define it – was achievable. Most people on the planet do not have that luxury.]
Second – What good is a world that is “morally fair” (to paraphrase your words) if that world is too dangerous to live in? That is, you don’t want to redistribute to the poor because “they don’t deserve it.” OK, fine. Let’s not quibble over morality and what folks deserve. Would you support redistribution if not doing so would result in a world in which your person is in great physical danger (because the folks that are “poor” decide to take from the rich by “pure” force). Personally, I’d rather redistribute if it keeps the masses at bay, regardless of any “moral” notions about “fairness.”
So, again, I sympathize with your (essentially) libertarian ideas here. I held similar views once myself. But I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny or the practical realities of living in a large society with disparate economic outcomes.
