Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Kama

ChoclateSauce wrote:

can you please explain what exactly self-defense has to do with the socio-economic philosophy of libertarianism?

Self-defence actually seems key to the socio-economic philosophy of libertarianism, to me. It's the condition that necessitates or legitimates the use of violence within the ideology, the right of its proponents to protect their property, within a system of thought which views aggression as illegitimate.

Now, rare is the belief system that openly espouses attacking others; nations have 'Department of Defence' more that 'Department of Offense', aggression is typically justified as taking place in response to an aggression, or the threat of one.

In libertarianism, this 'aggression' or 'coercion' is either expropriation by the State (tax) or by sub-state individuals or groups (looters). Violent force is seen as a necessary response to this initial aggression, whether its guys on your porch, or coercive statist redistribution, and is internally legitimated as a consequence of this initial aggression. If the expropriation is democratic, it is viewed as illegitimate due to the 'tyranny of the majority', and if it's undemocratic then its just defending yourself from criminal looters.

Critically speaking, the libertarians refusal on point of principle to accept any form of 'coercive' redistribution (what's mine is mine) requires a mechanism to maintain the (depoliticized) system of social relations encoded in a classic-liberal property regime, and the mechanism seems to be the use of force. It's internally coherent if you accept the premises, but looks like the mailed fist to go with the velvet libertarian glove of freedom if you don't.

It's one of those things about basic principles; as I believe DF says, you are free to do whatever you like unless you try and mess with property relations. Similarly, a Islamic fundamentalist might say you are free to do whatever you like as long as you submit to the law of Allah, and so on, for any non-compromisable value or ideological principle. Thus far, and no further, and btw if you go further, expect to be shot/beaten/etc.

As Dubya said, there oughta be limits to freedom; there are, and what those limits are tend to be the most interesting portion of what someone's definition of freedom is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

A basic principle of libertarianism is that you are free to do as you please, unless you are interfering with the rights, safety, or property of another. As such, I don't see that there is any analogy to be drawn with Islamic fundamentalism.

Precisely because any non-compromisable value = fundamentalism, imho. You appear to be reacting to the 'Islam' part more than the argument.

Libertarianism, as you espouse it, has non-compromisable values, including private property. Any found compromising the right to property of another, has contravened the fundamentalist assumption, and it's 'open season' on them.

It's a general analogy, and you can insert whatever value you like: conventional liberalism has something similar, it can't stand 'intolerance', since it privileges tolerance, a eco-fundamentalist will prioritise the rights of the ecosystem above others, such as human life, so that an individual who violates the earth can be 'shot' or otherwise harmed, as the libertarian would shoot those who violate property, etc.

You don't see the contrast between this an a philosophy concerned with placing large swathes of human activity and expression entirely outside the purview of the state?

Many and varied are the differences, but what's shared is a foundational value that 'trumps' other values. You are free to 'Do As You Please', unless you cross whatever the non-negotiable value line is. Again, this is by no means unique to libertarianism, it seems a general feature of ideologies. In mediaeval Islam, it was the status of the 'protected minorities' or dhimmi; you are free, unless you break our rules. Thus far, and no further. On this analytic level, I feel the analogy justified.

More to the point, can you name any political philosophy that does not endorse the use of violence to attain/preserve its chosen system of property rights?

There's very few, they tend to get stomped by the more violent ones.
There's a few honourable exceptions, including the Gandhian ahimsa approach, Quaker pacifism, and all sorts of smackf*cked attempts such as the Diggers through to Aung San Suu Kyi and Falun Gong. There is a relevant question here: is violence necessary to establish a system?

If I have it right, the libertarian account is that it is not justified in attaining, but it is in preserving? I noticed you combined them here.

Even the communist believes that property should be forcibly expropriated from its owners and placed in the communal ownership of all.

The Communist (if I understand correctly) views that property has already been forcibly appropriated, through a system of social relations based on violence, and it's seizure to be 'self-defence' in response to this forcible appropriation, and hence justified. One mans forceful appropriation is another mans legitimate seizure; with different foundational premises as to ownership of property, we get diametric but homologous justifications.

Libertarianism seems no different here than the Marxism you abhor, a mirror image. It's why I think the 'violence as self-defence' argumentative trope is so important; if any system is based on violence (and all, arguably, are), then violence is legitimate as a response.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you replace the word 'sharia' with property you get an equally totalitarian regime.
Under libertarianism, your relationship with property (owner, renter or propertyless) dictates all your options and opportunities and your freedom of expression movement etc..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Joycey wrote: »

You are not = to your property. Hence defending your property is not self-defence.

me wrote:

If a person breaks into my house and attacks me

I agree, and I would only advocate force if they attacked. Merely breaking in doesn't justify one striking the first blow.

Kama wrote:

Self-defence actually seems key to the socio-economic philosophy of libertarianism, to me. It's the condition that necessitates or legitimates the use of violence within the ideology, the right of its proponents to protect their property, within a system of thought which views aggression as illegitimate.

I'll just clarify; I meant the right to defend your body from harm, not your property from theft.

It is true there are people out there who believe that they have a right to defend property with pre-emptive force, but I'm not one of them. I do think I would have the right to threaten to defend myself with lethal force; this would give a would-be attacker the chance to leave without incident.

Regarding the rest of your post, I fail to see any reports in the news of libertarians using force to resist taxes. It seems to me an entirely peaceful opposition.

Sand

Originally Posted by Akrasia
Under libertarianism, your relationship with property (owner, renter or propertyless) dictates all your options and opportunities and your freedom of expression movement etc..

donegalfella wrote: »

Under a libertarian system, property underpins and guarantees freedom. Once all property is owned by the state, there is no freedom, no privacy, no security. George Orwell understood this all too well in 1984.

I was struck by the underlying shared view of both differing viewpoints. Akrasia thinks property rights are so important for freedom that individuals cant be trusted with them, whereas DF thinks property rights are so important for freedom that states cant be trusted with them. But everyone agrees property rights are the keystone of freedom.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Sand wrote: »

I was struck by the underlying shared view of both differing viewpoints. Akrasia thinks property rights are so important for freedom that individuals cant be trusted with them, whereas DF thinks property rights are so important for freedom that states cant be trusted with them. But everyone agrees property rights are the keystone of freedom.

The private property for freedom case has more evidence to support it than the collective property for freedom one.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, in a totalitarian system, there is little freedom, but the alternative to libertarianism is not a totaltarian communist regime.

If the state owns all the land there is no freedom, that is 100% accepted, I'll not argue with you there. However, do you accept that if all the land is owned by a tiny minority of landowners (say 5%) there is no freedom either.

In totalitarian communism, you can get things done if you well connected politically and are part of the internal party structure and rise to a position of power. In this situation, with political capital,you have a great deal of 'freedom' while the ordinary workers are dominated and repressed by the state.

In libertarianism, you can get things done if you are well connected economically and can access the finances to pursue business opportunities. You can have a great deal of economic freedom if you have the economic capital, while ordinary workers are left with severely restricted choices (which master to obey) I don't see how one system is totalitarian, while the other is the ultimate form of freedom.

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

I was struck by the underlying shared view of both differing viewpoints. Akrasia thinks property rights are so important for freedom that individuals cant be trusted with them, whereas DF thinks property rights are so important for freedom that states cant be trusted with them. But everyone agrees property rights are the keystone of freedom.

I think democracy is the keystone to freedom. Private property is entirely anti democratic as by its very nature, it exists to exclude people and as a means of exerting direct control without having to necessarily take into account the impacts your decisions have on others.

There are other threads that discuss this, but some kinds of property (eg private ownership of the workplace) confer dictator like powers to the owner over human beings, while other kinds of property (a toothbrush) are merely posessions and exclusive control by one person over what happens to that posession has no negative effect on others. (in a reasonable analysis, one could always argue to the extreme that you could sharpen your toothbrush and use it to stab someone...)

Akrasia

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The private property for freedom case has more evidence to support it than the collective property for freedom one.

That depends on how you define collective, and how you define freedom.
It is hard to argue that the workers in a workers cooperative are less free within that workplace than the workers in a non unionised corporation

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

That depends on how you define collective, and how you define freedom

Isn't concept contestation fun?

Time for a Adam Curtis quote:

What I'm trying to argue is that we have adopted, both our politicians and ourselves to an extent a narrow economic idea of what freedom means and that's based on the idea that the individual is free once his or her wants or needs are simply satisfied and is free just do what he or she wants.

Other Ideas of freedom are actually about changing the world both individually or collectively and transforming it and having the power to do that which is freeing yourself from the constraints, I don't know, scarcity or political oppression, all sorts of things. But really there are many, many different ideas, and much wider ideas of freedom.

Just finished the Living Dead, so I'm feeling fanboi...

Sand wrote:

But everyone agrees property rights are the keystone of freedom.

Both the more Marxist and the more Libertarian accounts anchor their conceptions of freedom on the economic base; without some kind of right to property, or the usufruct thereof, formal-legal equality in conditions of economic inequality become hollow, or as Anatole France put it, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.”

ChocolateSauce

Akrasia wrote: »

That depends on how you define collective, and how you define freedom.
It is hard to argue that the workers in a workers cooperative are less free within that workplace than the workers in a non unionised corporation

And how do you define those?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, It is reasonable to want your own privacy in your own home, But Libertarians want to extend that privacy into the public sphere, to have private roads, private parks, private schools, private hospitals. Where the owner can decide, on any basis he/she chooses which people may or may not use his/her 'private property'.

You think it increases freedom give individuals and small groups the power to dictate, without restraint, who can use (previously) public space and on which terms they can do so?

You like to have your private bedroom, fine. But you also want a wealthy person to have a private forest if he chooses, and if the neighbours would like to enter the forest, even for totally benign reasons, that they be liable to prosecution for trespass, or even attack if the owner is psychotic (ideological) enough to 'protect' his property rights with use of force.

That's not a coherent claim. If I work for a privately owned company such as Tesco, I have chosen freely to work in one of their stores, and to abide by the terms and conditions of my employment. When my shift ends, I can leave and go home. If the job sucks, or if I find a better job, I can quit. Someone living in North Korea didn't choose to be there. He can't leave. He can't quit. If he tries to escape, he will be shot. That's a real dictatorship. And it's a far cry from working at Tesco.

I'm not saying working for tesco is like living in North Korea. I'm saying the choice of work and do what you're told, or quit and perhaps find another job, is not the ultimate in freedom, not when there are alternative models that allow the workers to have employment, and also have a democratic input into the direction of the company, and the conditions in the workplace.

Working in tesco = more free than living in N.Korea but both options are less free than working in a cooperative, democratic workplace.

Sand

True, except that Akrasia's idea of freedom does not extend to the individual, who at every point is subject to the tyranny of the collective.

The private property for freedom case has more evidence to support it than the collective property for freedom one.

Agreed, an individual who depends on the approval of the collective for his freedom is not free at all. I just liked the fact that it comes down to property and who owns it. Reveals the real issue being Akrasia optimistic trust in the good nature of his fellow man, and DFs more realistic ( I would think) guarded caution on the good nature of his fellow man.
@Akraisa

I think democracy is the keystone to freedom. Private property is entirely anti democratic as by its very nature, it exists to exclude people and as a means of exerting direct control without having to necessarily take into account the impacts your decisions have on others.

I disagree. Democracy is merely a tool that measures and reflects the views of a people. Is a lynch mob democratic? Is a riot democratic? Is a pogrom democratic? Probably they are in all cases. Freedom, particularly individual freedom, is often the right to do something that completely flies in the face of the views and morality of the majority. This right by definition is not guaranteed by democracy, it is guaranteed by anti-democratic forces.

For the record I consider all strands of anarchism, collective and otherwise to be unworkable because they both assume human nature to be better than history has shown it to be.

There are other threads that discuss this, but some kinds of property (eg private ownership of the workplace) confer dictator like powers to the owner over human beings, while other kinds of property (a toothbrush) are merely posessions and exclusive control by one person over what happens to that posession has no negative effect on others. (in a reasonable analysis, one could always argue to the extreme that you could sharpen your toothbrush and use it to stab someone...)

I cant believe you have encountered human beings if you dont recognise that even in collectives, certain personalities tend to dominate and lead with far greater influence than their single vote might imply. the vast majority of people are sheep, looking for a shepard. Surrendering property rights from the individual to a collective, simply surrenders property rights to that particular dominant personality.

Economic power from propert rights is simply exchanged for political power under your system. Quite frankly, I prefer to have the right to tell people to get the **** off my lawn as opposed to petitioning the big man in the collective to tell them to get the **** off my lawn.

Libertarians are right in at least one sense - its better that the individual owns his own property than simply hold it in trust for the state. Theyre just wrong on everything else.

monellia

Sand wrote: »

For the record I consider all strands of anarchism, collective and otherwise to be unworkable because they both assume human nature to be better than history has shown it to be

Yo. I agree with all the points you made about democracy, but I think you are wrong about this. I can see why human nature may render forms of collective anarchism unworkable (although this is not my main reason for opposing collective anarchism), but I don't think this applies to anarcho-capitalism.

When you say that anarchism assumes human nature to be better than it is in relation to non-collective forms of anarchism, I assume you are referring to how it seems to accomodate murderers, rapists and thieves. On the surface, it would seem like there is nothing to prevent psychos from commiting corrupt acts in an anarchical society.

An anarcho-capitalist society would provide private defence agencies and private courts via the free market. Such like criminals in a statist society are kept at bay by the prospect of facing persecution by the state, criminals in an anarcho-capitalist society would be dissuaded from commiting crimes by the prospect of facing these private defence agencies.

Another reason why people think free market anarchism is unworkable is that, without government intervention, monopolies would arise, resulting in a gross disparity of property. I would contend that this is a non-issue and that markets tend to self-regulate given time. This is because a monopoly's ability to adapt in the free market decreases as it gets larger, so smaller companies can compete.

If I have misinterpreted your point and there are other reasons you can concieve as to why free market anarchism assumes human nature to be better than it is, do elaborate.

Akrasia

monellia wrote: »

Yo. I agree with all the points you made about democracy, but I think you are wrong about this. I can see why human nature may render forms of collective anarchism unworkable (although this is not my main reason for opposing collective anarchism), but I don't think this applies to anarcho-capitalism.

'Anarcho capitalism' is not Anarchism. It's merely anti state capitalism, and it's a very bad idea

When you say that anarchism assumes human nature to be better than it is in relation to non-collective forms of anarchism, I assume you are referring to how it seems to accomodate murderers, rapists and thieves. On the surface, it would seem like there is nothing to prevent psychos from commiting corrupt acts in an anarchical society.

An anarcho-capitalist society would provide private defence agencies and private courts via the free market. Such like criminals in a statist society are kept at bay by the prospect of facing persecution by the state, criminals in an anarcho-capitalist society would be dissuaded from commiting crimes by the prospect of facing these private defence agencies.

Those private defense agencies and private courts would almost certainly do more raping and murdering themselves than they would prevent through their intervention.

Private police forces would only protect the interests of the rich, and private criminal courts and prisons would be a recipe for totalitarianism much worse than the current state solution.

Another reason why people think free market anarchism is unworkable is that, without government intervention, monopolies would arise, resulting in a gross disparity of property. I would contend that this is a non-issue and that markets tend to self-regulate given time. This is because a monopoly's ability to adapt in the free market decreases as it gets larger, so smaller companies can compete.

If I have misinterpreted your point and there are other reasons you can concieve as to why free market anarchism assumes human nature to be better than it is, do elaborate.

That has no basis in reality. Consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few is clearly a feature of capitalism. If it wasn't for Anti Trust legislation, there would probably be no more than a few dozen big conglomerates controlling 99% of all economic activity in the planet

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

Consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few is clearly a feature of capitalism. If it wasn't for Anti Trust legislation, there would probably be no more than a few dozen big conglomerates controlling 99% of all economic activity in the planet. That has no basis in reality.

Fixed your post.

Consider Michael O'Leary, as he's one of the multi-millionaires you seem to despise so much. What does he do with his wealth? He provides a cheap and efficient service for millions of people, and provides thousands with employment. The idea that the wealthy hoard their riches in vaults simply is not true and it does not correspond to reality at all. There are innumerable other examples of wealthy people who invest their money which, in turn, provides services and unemployment.

Why are you so misanthropic? Why do you distrust the wealthy so much? Is it jealousy?

monellia

Akrasia wrote: »

''Anarcho capitalism' is not Anarchism. It's merely anti state capitalism, and it's a very bad idea

I do not see how “anti-state capitalism” is inconsistent with anarchism.

Anarchism = without rulers

Like many people, you seem to have a skewered perception of capitalism. The public sector serves to steal money from people who do not necessarily benefit from its services. This disturbs the economic equilibrium and undermines the freedom of the individual in society. It is only fair that all capital should be privatised.

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." (Murray Rothbard)

Anarcho-syndicalism is basically workplace democracy, and I think we can both agree that democracy fails.

Those private defense agencies and private courts would almost certainly do more raping and murdering themselves than they would prevent through their intervention.

What is your basis for believing this? If they did more raping and murdering than they would prevent, people would not pay for their services and the agency would not survive in the market. Your statement does not make any sense to me.

Private police forces would only protect the interests of the rich, and private criminal courts and prisons would be a recipe for totalitarianism much worse than the current state solution.

In a truly free market, different protection agencies would compete to provide services to people. The more demand there is for this service, the more competition there would be to meet this demand. As everyone wants protection, there would likely be defence services available to the poor.

That has no basis in reality. Consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few is clearly a feature of capitalism. If it wasn't for Anti Trust legislation, there would probably be no more than a few dozen big conglomerates controlling 99% of all economic activity in the planet

A wealthy company will have earned its wealth based on merit, and will have to keep competing with the ever-changing demands of consumers in order to maintain that level of wealth. A monopoly’s ability to adapt to these changing demands decreases in accordance with how big/wealthy it gets. Eventually a smaller and thus more versatile company does it better. Therefore, the “consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few” is a non-issue in the free market.

Lockstep

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not saying working for tesco is like living in North Korea. I'm saying the choice of work and do what you're told, or quit and perhaps find another job, is not the ultimate in freedom, not when there are alternative models that allow the workers to have employment, and also have a democratic input into the direction of the company, and the conditions in the workplace.

Working in tesco = more free than living in N.Korea but both options are less free than working in a cooperative, democratic workplace.

Interloping for a moment here; I cannot agree enough with the above.
I've worked crappy jobs (in supermarkets for example) just for the money and while I chose to do so, I was essentially being forced by another factor (being poor/going on the dole)

We always have a degree of choice; if I was forced at the barrel of a gun to sign a contract, I still have choice. I was under duress to do so.
While being forced to get a job I despise is infinetely more benign, there is still the element of duress.

Kama

A monopoly’s ability to adapt to these changing demands decreases in accordance with how big/wealthy it gets. Eventually a smaller and thus more versatile company does it better. Therefore, the “consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few” is a non-issue in the free market.

The assumption here that 'there will be no monopolies in a free market', assumes this result as axiomatic; which seems a less sophisticated position than the argument that monopoly is not necessarily a Bad Thing.

In a situation where the market has ease of entry, a new company may be able to do just this; other alternatives include predatory pricing to drive competitors with less reserves out of the market, or monopolistic dominance due to capital-intensive sunk costs and economies of scale making barriers to entry greater than the supposed advantage of flexibility; oil would be an example here.

What is your basis for believing this? If they did more raping and murdering than they would prevent, people would not pay for their services and the agency would not survive in the market.

Depends, to be quite blunt, on who they rape and who pays their wages. So long as these are somewhat separate, and their interests (financial or otherwise) do not coincide, said private agency could well indulge in such practices. Equally, in a fully privatized system, the ability to access the legal means of restitution would be severely circumscribed if the injured parties were relatively impoverished.

Which is not to say our current legal system does not display these properties, but that these (imo) pathologies would, I'd argue, be more severe within a fully privatized system.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Fixed your post.

Consider Michael O'Leary, as he's one of the multi-millionaires you seem to despise so much. What does he do with his wealth? He provides a cheap and efficient service for millions of people, and provides thousands with employment. The idea that the wealthy hoard their riches in vaults simply is not true and it does not correspond to reality at all. There are innumerable other examples of wealthy people who invest their money which, in turn, provides services and unemployment.

Why are you so misanthropic? Why do you distrust the wealthy so much? Is it jealousy?

Michael O Leary is the CEO of an airline. He doesn't provide a cheap and efficient service for anyone, he runs a company and the workers provide the service, but that's nothing to do with my argument. I said capitalism leads to wealth consolidation, and Ryanair are the perfect example of this. If they had their way, they would own Aer Lingus and have almost monopoly control over Irish Aviation. Airlines have been consolidating for decades into a smaller and smaller group of carriers, so have media, pharma and retail, its how capitalism works. There are booms, when lots of small businesses start and many of them make profits, then there are busts, when the big fish merge or buy out their compeition at bargain basement prices and grow larger and more powerful.

When an ordinary person spends his money, most of the time it is gone, it is used to buy goods and services that once consumed, no longer have any value. When a wealthy person spends his money, a small fraction is for consumables, the rest are investments, where, hopefully, the money invested generates a return and increases his wealth.

The wealthy man has innumerable opportunities for investing his cash that are not available to the ordinary person. A wealthy man can buy shares and make a profit as soon as they go up in value. He can also buy controlling ownership of a company and use the companies assets to make him even more money.
An ordinary worker gets no such influence, and his shares must increase in value by at least a few percent before he even breaks even due to the charges and costs involved in low level trading.

Similarly with deposit accounts and borrowings, The ordinary worker gets low yield savings accounts, and can only borrow money at very high interest rates. The wealthy investor gets to choose high yield deposit accounts and can borrow money at much more favourable terms.

Capitalism is not a level playing field. The game is rigged in favour of the wealthy, the fact that the game is rigged means over the medium to long term, more and more of the wealth will be transferred from the poor to the rich.

brianthebard

Soldie wrote: »

Fixed your post.

Consider Michael O'Leary, as he's one of the multi-millionaires you seem to despise so much. What does he do with his wealth? He provides a cheap and efficient service for millions of people, and provides thousands with employment. The idea that the wealthy hoard their riches in vaults simply is not true and it does not correspond to reality at all. There are innumerable other examples of wealthy people who invest their money which, in turn, provides services and unemployment.

Why are you so misanthropic? Why do you distrust the wealthy so much? Is it jealousy?

This ^^ has no basis in reality. If you make a 30 second google on worldwide distribution of wealth you'll see that more and more is owned by less and less. This has been a key feature of the last century in particular and capitalism in general. Here is just one source of thousands that demonstrates the point;
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13949

A nice UN graph, for those who prefer their data as images;

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

Michael O Leary is the CEO of an airline. He doesn't provide a cheap and efficient service for anyone, he runs a company and the workers provide the service

Indeed, he runs it. Therefore, he provides a service and employs people.

I said capitalism leads to wealth consolidation, and Ryanair are the perfect example of this. If they had their way, they would own Aer Lingus and have almost monopoly control over Irish Aviation. Airlines have been consolidating for decades into a smaller and smaller group of carriers, so have media, pharma and retail, its how capitalism works.

No, it's not. It's how you think capitalism works. And it's amusing that you reference the airline industry as an example of the evil tendencies of private enterprise, as air fares have plummeted ever since Ryanair came on the scene. Aer Lingus offer one destination from Knock, while Ryanair offer five destinations from Knock. I can fly with Ryanair from Knock to Alicante, one way, for the sum of €35.28 (including taxes), despite the fact that nobody competes with Ryanair on this route. Can you explain the price? Why are Ryanair not charging extortionate fares when they have a monopoly on this route? Do you think it could be that, if Ryanair's price was far higher, people would find another way of getting to Alicante (through the UK, for example)? Monopolies are unstable and transient in nature for exactly this reason.

When an ordinary person spends his money, most of the time it is gone, it is used to buy goods and services that once consumed, no longer have any value. When a wealthy person spends his money, a small fraction is for consumables, the rest are investments, where, hopefully, the money invested generates a return and increases his wealth.

The wealthy man has innumerable opportunities for investing his cash that are not available to the ordinary person. A wealthy man can buy shares and make a profit as soon as they go up in value. He can also buy controlling ownership of a company and use the companies assets to make him even more money.

Can you explain why this is a problem if the wealthy person is providing services and employment with his investment?

brianthebard wrote: »

This ^^ has no basis in reality. If you make a 30 second google on worldwide distribution of wealth you'll see that more and more is owned by less and less. This has been a key feature of the last century in particular and capitalism in general. Here is just one source of thousands that demonstrates the point;
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13949

A nice UN graph, for those who prefer their data as images;

As was implied in my previous post, the incorrect assumption here is that the wealthy hoard their wealth, which is not true. If that graph were specific to Ireland, Michael O'Leary would be in the top income category. Is he holed up in his fortress on the hilltop with all of his riches stashed in a huge vault, or is he providing a valuable service and employing thousands of people? What is he doing with his wealth? Considering that he does provide a valuable service and that he does employ thousands, it's inaccurate to say that he's a concentration of wealth.

brianthebard

Soldie wrote: »

As was implied in my previous post, the incorrect assumption here is that the wealthy hoard their wealth, which is not true. If that graph were specific to Ireland, Michael O'Leary would be in the top income category. Is he holed up in his fortress on the hilltop with all of his riches stashed in a huge vault, or is he providing a valuable service and employing thousands of people? What is he doing with his wealth? Considering that he does provide a valuable service and that he does employ thousands, it's inaccurate to say that he's a concentration of wealth.

I don't know if you are ignoring the realities of the facts I posted or if you just don't understand what it means, but to reiterate, 20% of the worlds' population holds 82.7% of the worlds' income. In the 70's this figure was about 74% (I haven't a link for that atm but I'm sure you could find one if you wanted). Throughout the 20th century and indeed further in the past there has been a system in place whereby wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of less and less people. Your story about Michael O'Leary is a strawman, you make out like he's employing people with money out of his own pocket and distributing earnings which is not the case.

Soldie

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know if you are ignoring the realities of the facts I posted or if you just don't understand what it means, but to reiterate, 20% of the worlds' population holds 82.7% of the worlds' income. In the 70's this figure was about 74% (I haven't a link for that atm but I'm sure you could find one if you wanted). Throughout the 20th century and indeed further in the past there has been a system in place whereby wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of less and less people. Your story about Michael O'Leary is a strawman, you make out like he's employing people with money out of his own pocket and distributing earnings which is not the case.

How can you call my O'Leary point a straw man when you're the one who posted a graph in an attempt to refute it (when you claimed that it had no basis in reality)?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.