I will have a class on libertarianism this monday and the teacher is a commie that will complain about wealth inequality. "These people have $200 and Neymar earns $200 million per year how is this fair wooow".
Last class I objected and explained that Neymar earns this much money because free individuals voluntarily transfer their honest-earned money to Neymar since they think he deserves it, and that there is nothing wrong with that. She said "yeah I know but is that fair???".
Next class will apparently have a bunch of texts about inequality.
Please give me some reads so I can counter this bullshit.
"fair" is not a concept that exists in nature Something being "fair" is not an argument, since you can't really establish fairness. What does it even mean something is fair? You can prove anything is "not fair" by some arbitrary standard.
>"Man is an animal, and despite creativity, ingenuity and morals, we should construct our society based on how penguins do shit"
Matthew Nguyen
WHAT A HUGE FAGGOT
Connor Roberts
Dude I'm going through Law, not math or whatever uses this "Pareto distribution".
I was thinking about something like Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman, Rothbard...
Nolan Sanchez
Are you...nvm
Hayek - Jew Mises - Jew Friedman - Jew Rothbard - Jew
Fpbp
Jason Richardson
Its a economic principle in anything where human creativity/work is a factor
20% of the people always produce 80% of the goods And from that 20%, 20% of them produce 80% of the goods. Or score 80% of the goals ... etc Please shut up, you are a embarrassment
Luis Walker
That's interesting. I was reading Hoppe and he said something very similar.
He said that there are a few individuals, around 20% in a society, who have a very low time preference. This means they are willing to sacrifice instant rewards in order to achieve bigger rewards on the long run. These individuals are inventors, CEOs and such. They basically keep society running. Seems like these two principles are pretty compatible.
Liam Gutierrez
20% produce 80% of the goods. And is there anything besides production in am economy? Just production huh
Management, analysts, logistical transport, skilled labour, etc.
Do you live in a vaccuum?
Michael Lewis
fuck off retard
Carter Reyes
>community college class >101 >anime message board tutoring
Grayson Walker
>>"fair" is not a concept that exists in nature >Something being "fair" is not an argument What exactly is the point of a society then? Just kill and rape whoever you can.
Jonathan Brooks
Safety and trade Again fair is a non argument. Since i can construct any sort of distribution to be unfair to someone. With Pareto distribution being real. And 20% of the people in society work their shit off to produce basically all the goods, you can't expect things being fair.
Fairness = equality of opportunity not of outcome A "fair" Utopian society has been tried a lot of times, it didn't go as planned every time. did it.
Joseph Taylor
>Safety and trade So basically the point of society is to enforce rules over the lower part of the pyramid so that the upper part of the pyramid can be safe from their reprisal no matter how much they exploit them?
Or are *you* talking about some Utopian society in which rules are applied equally to all parts of the pyramid?
Oh right, if they were applied like that from the start, there wouldn't be a pyramid in the first place.
Literally Catholic Turkey.
Jaxon Adams
That's an interesting point. In my opinion there is no way anyone can abstract any a priori concept of "fairness" without either:
a) being extremely jusrationalistic, which leads to the axiom of private property, but even this is seen as skeptical and philosophers like Hegel will say it is straight-down impossible;
b) have the jusnaturalistic theological approach, where you believe in God and thus you draw your a priori values from God;
If you are an atheist, I am sorry but you are doomed to nihilism, should you ever put any thought and reason on our purpose here.
Nietzsche would say that life has no meaning. We have no purpose, no mission. Therefore, we are all free.
You really can't dodge this if you are an atheist. There is absolutely no way that the human mind can find a priori meanings for existence.
Kayden Smith
So you're a YakBak. That's nice.
What factors defind equality of opportunity? Is a stress important to mental and physical health? Would a stressful economic upbringing impede one from success on academic standards?
Would starting capital inequality be fair in any type of buying and selling? Is a Rothchild threatened by a peer working in an assembly line? Do penny stocks and foodstamps hold a candle to 6 digit Money Market Funds and free market healthcare preference?
Easton Gutierrez
Distributism combines common sense economic and social policies with Christianity. It's not perfect, but it's pretty decent.
Jacob Ross
It is impossible to justify distributism with Christianity since Christianity also says "thou shalt not steal". You need to justify it somewhere else.
It is ethically impossible to justify the existence of wealth distribution, or even of the State.
Lincoln Jenkins
It's always people who don't read the Bible who do this
Luke 3:11
King James Bible He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
You dont know economics. You dont know history. You dont know Bible.
You know regurgitation
Kayden Lewis
But you see, Christians are not shit people like nihilists, so they're happy to give voluntarily, as the Bible teaches.
Brandon Moore
You are arguing with a hallucination of what I said, read it again. The "pyramid" is a natural occurrence from human nature. Exploitation is antithesis with voluntary trade
Equal access to the free market And again fair doesnt exist. Its not "fair" that some people have 150IQ and can differ gratification and some have 70. Or some are beautiful and some are born ugly. That some are born in rich families, and inherit a lot of resources.
The point of equal opportunity is that theres no celing for peasants to become 1%s. The road is for sure different than someone born with a silver spoon. But most of millionaires in free countries are self-made Read up on the city of Munster in Germany, what happened where those laws were applied
Michael Peterson
I'm Baptist. It's like one of the Christian denominations that studies the Bible the most. Jesus said that referring to voluntarism.
He never said "Immediately give your possessions to the poor and follow me or I will smite you". He said "do that if you want, up to you".
No one knows economics. It's why no one should try to control it, they just can't.
No one knows history. For certain, at least. It's all about faith. "Did the holocaust happen or not" just comes down to "do you have faith in the holocaust or not".
I like to think I know more about the Bible than the average person but I still have much more to learn.
Indeed. Voluntarism is beautiful, theft isn't.
Dylan Bennett
>The "pyramid" is a natural occurrence from human nature. So is rape, murder, theft, torture, yet somehow it's ok to discourage those by societal rules and regulations. What's the difference?
>And again fair doesnt exist. Its not "fair" that some people have 150IQ and can differ gratification and some have 70. Or some are beautiful and some are born ugly. That some are born in rich families, and inherit a lot of resources. Then clearly your Utopian society wouldn't mind if a 70IQ person just killed the 150IQ and took his stuff, right? I mean, it's just human nature so why do anything about it?
Grayson Nelson
To arrive at private property being a thing, you have to assume that you are a real physical entity, and the world is real as well. And all follows from that Which isn't a big leap to make
Noah Foster
1) IQ is a standard that is tested well-after the effects of socio-economic inequality have had their influence on the subject. Stress leads to academic failure. 2) Inheriting resources can be immoral. Nepotism is an example. Inheriting CEO is immoral. 3) Millionaires. That's cute. Try multi-multi millionaires and billion-dollar families. 4) I dont need to look to post-WW2 examples. That alone shows your lack of understanding on geopolitics and history
Gabriel Ross
You dont need books to explain anything It can be presented by leaving a 100 dollars in the classroom. If it lasts until the end of the semester then it can be shared by all the students. If it disappears, gets stolen etc thats capitalism baby.
People have unlimited wants and will seek to try and satisfy them.
Parker Ross
Because its not in the best interest of anyone to kill, steal or torture Non-aggression principle is the Nash equilibrium of social interaction Straying from that is only beneficial when other people are not playing nash(following ubi)
Isaac Garcia
Stupid word games that excuse the rich killing, stealing, and torturing indirectly enough that you just might sell such a system to the masses.
Lincoln Barnes
>"It's impossible to justify distributism with Christianity"
He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
>"Jesus is saying 'do that if you want to, up to you'"
Can we both agree that youre head is up your ass
Ryder Ross
>But most of millionaires in free countries are self-made citation?
Angel Diaz
>1) IQ is a standard that is tested well-after the effects of socio-economic inequality have had their influence on the subject. Stress leads to academic failure. No twin studies showed unequivocally that its 60-80% heritable >2) Inheriting resources can be immoral. Nepotism is an example. Inheriting CEO is immoral. Yes and in the current economy CEO's are largely picked on merit. Since they answer to the shareholders If the person is not fit for the CEO, company will suffer and get outcompeted >3) Millionaires. That's cute. Try multi-multi millionaires and billion-dollar families. Yes they are in the top pyramid of distribution. But I have to note, that that pyramid flips very fast. People go up and down it. Fortune 500 companies too >4) I dont need to look to post-WW2 examples. That alone shows your lack of understanding on geopolitics and history Yes there are people who have their fortunes from foul-play, because of the government not free trade.
1) No, there arent. You would need to have a vaccum, in which a rich subject is raised in the EXACT same circumstances tit-for-tat as a poor subject. Every resteraunt meal, every tropical vacation, every day at school with brand new clothes and a healthy social life.
2) Semantics. Nepotism exists. Youre tunneled in on CEO.
3) Rothchilds, DuPonts, Rockefellers, Gates have never and will never "go down"
4) "Because of government" you are so lost in the fucking sauce, you have no idea.
Xavier Miller
Try Hayek Road to Serfdom The Constitution of Liberty
Elijah Rodriguez
Read these and there's no time to read them again since my class is Monday.
I need something specific. And something that deals especially with the idea of fairness in inequality.
Roger Scruton came very close to this in "How to be a conservative".
Gabriel Baker
The Achilles heel of Jews is that they don't like to do labor. Academy, Law, Banks, Medicine, Arts. They learn how rules of systems work.
You don't see Jewish construction workers.
Joshua Taylor
My eyes.
Zuckerberg is "self-made". Yet he was attending an Ivy League school and borrowed capital from his multi-multi millionaire father to do so.
You are partisan to Capitalism. Indoctrinated
Samuel Powell
"They learn how rules of systems works"
And they subvert them. How is any of this Constitutional, patriot? (Its called monopoly)
www.thezog.info/list-summaries
>Of the twenty-four(24) senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities, twenty(20) are Jews
Noah Jenkins
Get a summary of Nozick's utility monster
If you are serious, don't sleep and know your shit...try reading books.
Lacau and Mouffe " Hegemony and Socialist Stratagy" is good to use against SJW's. It pisses them off because it's Marxist criticizing Marxist.
Sen and Nussbaum are opportunity not outcome based Marxist that are good.
Do you think he could get spun up on Mises in time?
Oliver Harris
LOL no, but there's podcasts and YouTube summaries and stuff if he's for real.
Ryder Hall
I love Rothbard and I still haven't read this. Gonna give it a try.
You say that as if he was sophisticated but Mises is incredibly mediocre and the very few spots where he does shine is just him copying Aristotle in a very half-assed way.
I'm already well educated in austrian economics and also an anarcho-capitalist. I just want to study the specific theme of fairness in distribution of wealth as I said in the OP since that will be the theme of monday's discussion. It is actually fairly difficult to dispute that point since it relies heavily on emotional arguments.
Hunter Garcia
Why should an idiot be in charge of the same amount of resources as a genius? You don't need books to refute this shit, it's common sense. Income inequality is good because people aren't equal.
Oliver Torres
And this is an obvious copout, sheep answer. Everything your golden calf does is done more and done better by Asians, yet
>Of the ten(10) JPMorgan Chase Operating Committee members, nine are Jews
>Of the nine(9) Goldman Sachs executives, seven(7) are Jews
>Of the eleven(11) current and former senior advisors of President Barack Obama, nine(9) are Jews
>Of the fifty-three(53) executives and directors of the Anti-Defamation League, fifty-three(53) are Jews
>Of the sixty-seven(67) senior executives of the major television and radio news networks, forty-seven(47) are Jews
>Of the three(3) Facebook executives, three(3) are Jews.
Zachary James
If I put it with these words they will think I'm a nazi. It's a safe space full of butthurt special snowflakes and I'm already going to make them shit their pants by defending capitalism, that would blow it.
John Cruz
Hey, so actually it's not complicated and not emotional.
Basically, wealth inequality exists because some people are more productive than others, and create wealth as a result. In order to get rid of wealth inequality, we'd have to limit the productive capacity of people that are creating things that the rest of us want - we'd all be poor.
That's the basic cause, here's an example of why it's a good thing: today we all have awesome cellphones and people in Africa can afford cellphones and Internet connectivity. But if we didn't have rich people in the 1980s that could afford to spend thousands of dollars on cutting edge phones, then the technology would've never progressed. Wealth inequality means that more rich people can subsidize economic progress and then poor people are the beneficiaries.
By spending lots of money on cool stuff today, rich people make it possible for everyone to afford cool stuff tomorrow.
Jaxson Bailey
Most economic theory does. I'm a Psychologist not an economist. We use post-structural theory (Foucault, Derrida, Vygotsky, Bahktin). My dissertation was about social justice (Sen and Nussbaum) and therapy program evaluations. I went down the rabbit hole trying to understand chaos theory and reflexivity theory. /Pol got me into Libertarian economics and the Austrian school.
Now I am just a hot mess who really fucking hates socialist.
Control the institutions always. They are Platonic and we Christians are Aristotelian. We have virtue and for them it is ok to lie steal and cheat. And they both screw over the Christian inventors who are high risk takers.
Caleb Ward
This argument doesn't explain why you shouldn't seize one million from Neymar and give it to others. They can also argue that we would achieve more in the long run if you just distributed the wealth. It IS emotional.
These people are fools. The wise men love what they should love and hate what they should hate, they are guided by absolute values after all. The fools love and hate based on arbitrary abstractions that are heavily influenced by social pressure. I already explained why inequality existed last class and how it is the result of free people acting voluntarily, they agreed that it was the epitome of freedom but they also said it's unfair and I don't know what to fucking say since their idea of fairness is incredibly arbitrary and ugly but how to put that with words?
I was a conservative, well educated especially in British Conservatism (though obviously I was not willing to apply this in Brazil since it's tailored for the UK) and that type of conservatism has a nice libertarian grip.
Then a friend introduced me to libertarianism by recommending me "The Law" from Bastiat. I fell in love with the concept right away, and Rothbard sealed the deal with the libertarian manifesto.
Today I am a paleolibertarian, which is a libertarian with very conservative morals.
Christian Jenkins
Maybe the ContraKrugman episode I linked to will help, but you can't force people to listen to logic. The argument that "more productive people should control more resources because they make the best use of those resources and then things turn out best for society as a whole" is completely logical, not emotional. I think what you're actually trying to say is that these people will only listen to an emotional argument, and I think you're fucked there...
I dropped out of college years ago because of shit just like this, and it hasn't hurt me any, but if you've got the time to argue with these idiots, have fun and I hope you can convert one or two.
Alexander Myers
Podcast some Molyneux bro.
Colton Murphy
I was a left leaning punk in school. Did 20 years and 2 tours in Iraq to realize all form of government are corrupt.
Went to school and read lots of books on philosophy. Found Ancap and my belief in Aristotelian thinking matches my Catholic values.
I practice positive psychology and the who agency-authenticity thing.
I believe when the great Keynesian fiasco crashes, we will see the rebirth of cottage industries and a new artisan class.
William Garcia
What do you mean you practice positive psychology? Like James Allen / Napolean Hill? Or you're talking about something else?
What's worked best for you to learn Aristotle?
Zachary Walker
The evidence of inequality permeates every facet of life, cultural, economic, political, Etcetera.
Instead of trying to prove it's existence make your essay an example of how efforts to remove inequality have never worked.
Talk about the USSRs planned economy and how it led to their downfall Scandinavia's efforts to create equity in what jobs are done by what gender and how it failed Why despite everyone being equal under the law, genders and races on average earn differently.
Gavin Hall
Indeed. Hoppe said that democracy is not economically viable and he was so right, all forms of democracy - especially the ones with lots of "gibs" policies - have been going bankrupt. It's just a matter of time. I hope I am still alive when the time comes.
Literally no one tried to say it doesn't exist, only an idiot would deny inequality
Some people say it is good, I think these people are wrong Some people say it is simply natural, a fact of life, I think these people are right The retards in my class are saying it is unfair, I think they are very retarded
Connor Carter
Postive psychology- Martin Seligman Also Post-modern psychology
For me just start reading Nicomachean Ethics but also Politics and maybe Metaphysics.
Sebastian Robinson
As soon as you get bureaucracy, Weber comes in to the mix like an Iron Cage.
James Adams
I can't offer you any sources, but I can provide an argument that turns the 'argument from fairness' on its head.
As another user said, even if third-worlders are relatively poor, they can still afford luxuries unimaginable to their ancestors.
And here's the rub:
While the capitalist system gives disproportionate prosperity between a group, the alternative creates disproportionate prosperity relative to what the poor would have experienced if it weren't for capitalism.
Instead of focusing on how X% earn 25% more than Y%, instead focus on how Y% earn 50% more than Y% would from the communist's society - now ask yourself 'why is it that disparity between groups as a purely relative matter is more important than absolute disparity in the well-being of the people'?
It isn't, absolute prosperity unequivocally bests relative prosperity - otherwise it would be better to be a landlord in 1200 A.D. than an engineer in 2017 A.D.
Joseph Morales
Machinery of Freedom is a good book
Ryder Roberts
That's an argument based on utilitarianism and I hate that.
"It's better because it provides more happiness to the largest possible amount of people on the long run"
I prefer to deal in absolutes, preferably with natural laws.
With that said, your argument would probably work and convince many of them since not many people care about avoiding utilitarianism. I guess your average college student would just dive deep into it actually.
Evan Taylor
>She said Stopped reading here. Just forget it, it's not possible to have proper discussion with a female, they arent capable of forming their own opinion based on knowledge and experience and merely translate opinion of one who fucks them (or fucks their brains).
Ethan Russell
Point out its vastly overexagerated and the middle class owns the vast majority of the world's wealth
Gavin Brooks
> I prefer to deal in absolutes, preferably with natural laws.
Sounds like you need to discuss positive rights vs negatives rights. If you can show why positive rights is bullshit, then it's simple to say, we have no right to someone else's property, so inequality just is what it is. But if people believe in positive rights and making things "fair" then there is no argument you can make.
Adam Lee
>Point out its vastly overexagerated and the middle class owns the vast majority of the world's wealth Define "vast majority" please.
It isn't necessarily utilitarian, for I have also presented the case that alternatives to capitalism promote income inequality - just between the wealth theoretically obtained by the lower class in a capitalist society. Although I suppose this is still pragmatic.
As 139076694 also said, you can also approach this using concepts of positive and negatives rights (right to, vs. right from).
This has also allowed me to develop my own arguments and case in favour of capitalism, ty.
Leo Fisher
Yeah because half of humanity make two cents a day. The middle class mame about 60 trillion a year. The richest 1% make 10 trillion a year.
