OT: “The Self-Made Myth”

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]

So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]

So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?[/quote]

Wasn’t saying it has actually happened. Was saying that you seem to have suggested it:

[quote=pri_dk]The challenge when adopting these ideas to government policy is to eliminate the imbalances that are due to “luck” without removing the incentives that drive success.[/quote]

And again:
[quote=pri_dk]First, the goal is not to “reduce the effect of personal choice.” It’s to reduce the negative effect of circumstances that are not a result of choice.[/quote]

Apparently, without even realizing it.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]

So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?[/quote]

And, by the way, you don’t have to be a dick about it.

[Anonymous]

So let’s try a real-world example, one that I already mentioned:

Should the government support the education of poor kids with a strong aptitude for science?

Of do we limit our pool of doctors, computer scientists, aeronautical engineers, etc. to children of the rich?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk]So let’s try a real-world example, one that I already mentioned:

Should the government support the education of poor kids with a strong aptitude for science?

Of do we limit our pool of doctors, computer scientists, aeronautical engineers, etc. to children of the rich?[/quote]

These are not mutually exclusive choices.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]

So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?[/quote]

And, by the way, you don’t have to be a dick about it.[/quote]

Yeah, you use the phrase, “true insanity” in response to two of my polite rebuttals, and I’m the one who is being a “dick?”

If you are going to make it through life as genuine “self-made” independent libertarian, you’re gonna have to get some thicker skin.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=pri_dk]So let’s try a real-world example, one that I already mentioned:

Should the government support the education of poor kids with a strong aptitude for science?

Of do we limit our pool of doctors, computer scientists, aeronautical engineers, etc. to children of the rich?[/quote]

These are not mutually exclusive choices.[/quote]

Fine, then propose an alternative.

Although it’s a simple, relevant, yes/no question:

Does the government provide student aid?

Can you answer it?

[sdduuuude]

Not with tax money, no.

I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.

If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]Not with tax money, no.

I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.

If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.[/quote]

Um, we pretty much do that already.

It’s called paying taxes.

Now you seem to be advocating more of a pure democracy, “line item” approach to budgeting, where people vote for specific polices and programs with their wallet. Which is would be interesting, complicated, and an absolutely infeasible mess.

I’d like to hear how that would work…but not really. Because I doubt you’ve thought this through yet.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdduuuude]Not with tax money, no.

I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.

If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.[/quote]

Sorry. You asked “do they” I answered “do I think they should”

They do provide student aid. But I don’t think they should with taxpayers’ money.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Not with tax money, no.

I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.

If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.[/quote]

Um, we pretty much do that already.

It’s called paying taxes.

Now you seem to be advocating more of a pure democracy, “line item” approach to budgeting, where people vote for specific polices and programs with their wallet. Which is would be interesting, complicated, and an absolutely infeasible mess.

I’d like to hear how that would work…but not really. Because I doubt you’ve thought this through yet.[/quote]

I have thought it through – more than you’ll ever know.

Since you would not really want to know, I’m done with you. You really are a dick, you know. Discussions between you and several people always seem to take a turn that results in you being a jerk. Starting to realize it isn’t them.

[an]

[quote=pri_dk]So let’s try a real-world example, one that I already mentioned:

Should the government support the education of poor kids with a strong aptitude for science?

Of do we limit our pool of doctors, computer scientists, aeronautical engineers, etc. to children of the rich?[/quote]
Yes they should and already are. But I would say they should only do it for STEM degrees. If you want to be a liberal arts major, do it on your own dimes. However, those liberal arts major are also getting government support right now too.

[davelj]

[quote=sdduuuude]
The logical fact remains – when the government starts making decisions for people, it removes choices from every-day people, increasing their reliance on luck.

There’s no two ways about it from my perspective.
[/quote]

Your perspective is incomplete. When you take one person’s money – say, a wealthy person’s – and redistribute it to another person – say a poor person – you are removing the choice of what the the first person will do with that money, but… you are increasing the choices available to the person receiving that money. The wealthy person has already benefited from luck. All you’re doing is raising the odds that the poor person will benefit as well. Now, in reality, many poor folks will be HURT by receiving that money because it will set up a negative incentive (ouch!), but… in many other cases this redistributed “assistance” will help that disadvantaged person. The price of the former is one expense related to helping the latter. And, admittedly, I’m oversimplifying (just as you are).

[quote=sdduuuude]
And I’m quite certain that the government shouldn’t be in control of luck.
[/quote]

Spoken as someone who has benefited from luck and thus wants to simplify the debate into something that is silly on its face.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Somebody writes a book saying luck plays a part in people’s success and all of the sudden, we need the government to get involved to fix the whole problem.

True insanity.[/quote]

The problem is not “luck”, per se, and you know this. The problem is massive income (and thus influence) inequality of which one source is “random fortune” (or “luck”).

While I don’t advocate a Scandinavian-socialist model, it’s pretty clear to me (at least) that our system is rigged to perpetuate the ultra-wealthy and, as we saw during the financial crisis, to “protect” these folks from the actual downside risks associated with the risky assets from which much of this group’s wealth is derived (think of much of Big Finance). If these folks are going to have a permanent put related to their wealth – as it appears they do – I think they should pay for it in the form of redistribution that reduces the level of inequality that we see today.

I’m not saying this is a perfect model (far from it, in fact) – to be clear – I’m just saying the model we have now is completely screwed where the middle class is concerned vis-a-vis the 1%.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]You really are a dick, you know. [/quote]

Yeah, I know.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]Yes they should and already are. But I would say they should only do it for STEM degrees. If you want to be a liberal arts major, do it on your own dimes. However, those liberal arts major are also getting government support right now too.[/quote]

So there is a line somewhere that needs to be drawn. But how do we determine where? I understand your point about STEM degrees, as I purposely setup a fairly uncontroversial example.

But why not liberal arts? Are they of no value at all? What about people that become lawyers? The rule of law is the most important aspect of our society. And who writes our history books?

I don’t have an answer, but I know it’s not so simple.

Do we limit our pool or lawyers, historians, and teachers to the children of the rich?

[Author]

Posts