Goal vs Means

[rowyn]

[Poll #1763592][Poll #1763593]
If you answered 'no' to either question, I would be very happy to hear your reasons.

I know that these scenarios are ridiculous; I am not 100% convinced about pretty much anything in my life.  But I am curious if anyone finds the non-economic reasons for these things (and ones certainly exist!) to be compelling even in the absence of economic benefit.  I tend to look at reasons like "high taxes on the rich are akin to stealing and therefore wrong" or "the rich benefit most from social order and therefore should pay more" as less 'sufficient justification by themselves' than as an explanation of why one system or the other would be better from a total economic perspective. I am curious whether or not others feel the same way.

Posted via LiveJournal app for Android.

Comments

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Yes on 1, no on 2: because there are solid political and practical reasons to want to cap accumulated wealth that have nothing to do with economics. As you have perhaps noticed, wealth is fungible into power; a severely progressive income tax is the only reliable way to keep a lucky few from ending up accumulating enough power to own the rest of us outright.

[rowyn]

I can see that rationale, even if I don't have quite the worldview to agree with it. I am glad you commented -- I really wanted to know more about the non-economic motives favoring one tax system over another.

[quarrel.livejournal.com]

I brought up the “rich people have more power” claim with a — well, not “friend”. More like “avid political activist”. I was in the middle of a thought experiment myself. I’d proposed a hard limit on personal wealth, akin to how no particular branch of government is supposed to have too much power.

He adamantly disagreed that wealth equaled power. To him, “power” meant only “legitimate power,” and, in his mind, everyone has an identical amount. People with more money do get away with more illegal activity, but that is only indirectly because they have more money. The direct cause is that uncorrupt people let them. Thus the proper fix to evil flourishing is for good people to stop doing nothing. He was dead-set against laws that restrict or prohibit enabling-but-not-inherently-immoral activities, such as owning a gun or lots of money, and instead favored more reliable prosecution of people who do actual immoral things. It would mean more freedom overall, and it wouldn’t have the endemic weakness of trying to prevent known law-breakers from breaking laws by writing more laws.

He didn’t say how he’d get society more vigilant against illegal activity, though. I don’t imagine he had a simple plan; it’s not a simple problem.

[rowyn]

I think the theory that wealth != power in a free and just society is correct. I am not sure such a society is achievable in practice, at least with present technology.

I do think that the pursuit of wealth by individuals has positive benefits for society, by motivating individuals to take risks/work hard/come up with new ideas/etc., and I think that putting an artificial constraint on the upper limit has a negative impact on this. Some, may be even many, are motivated by the lottery /game aspect to do things they wouldn't do if there wasn't an unlimited upside, and some of those things are very valuable. (Some of them, very bad, but some of the very bad ones will only get worse if you make it criminal to pursue wealth past a certain point.)