I'm sorry Mark, I had no intention of attacking your character. I'm interested in the ideas. I didn't read all that stuff, but the part you quoted was bad enough in my view.
There is already a lot of capital communally owned, such as all the expired patents, all the roadways built over hundreds of years, political systems providing stability and private ownership. The world is getting richer and richer faster and faster, not all the wealth being expressed in dollars.
But that wealth can be destroyed in a short time if the mob gets envious of those who have and create more capital. There is no merit in 'sharing it around'.
Neither does having capital make people lazy, venal etc, which seems to be more or less expected from this quote, though they allow that some people have noblesse oblige;
< The security of wealth would make people lazy or greedy, or perhaps both. Wealth that was not directly derived from human toil and savings would encourage people to indulge in wasteful conspicuous consumption or else turn them into miserly misanthropes, nervously counting their money and craving more.
In the fullness of human variety, all of these personal responses to owning wealth are, indeed, sure to occur. We know this with certainty because these are some of the behavioral traits already visible among people who own great wealth. Some of them are foolish and arrogant, some are malevolent and grasping. Yet it is likewise true that some rich people are modest and wise, some are creative and generous, some even saintly. Wealth by itself does not determine human character, nor does the fact of owning wealth exempt one from the human condition.>
I think the contrary is the case. Those who achieve wealth are disposed to value creativity, productivity, savings and other values which sustain the world.
Wealth doesn't determine human character but those who achieve wealth have to show the right human character to achieve it or they won't achieve it. And owning wealth does exempt people from many aspects of 'the human condition' which is NOT a constant.
Using dominance hierarchies to steal wealth from others has always been. We have been moving beyond that in recent centuries with recognition of private property.
I don't think that ownership of capital will be necessary for survival. People can sell their services and rent the assets they need [such as accommodation, cars, aircraft seats etc]. There's not really a need to 'own' capital. But having to sell service means having to work, which isn't necessarily attractive to everyone [since they can't get jobs which they enjoy and would do even if they weren't paid - such as sitting here giving free pixels to cyberspace for you and others to read]. Actually, I do get paid - you give me information and ideas, for which I'm grateful.
The underlying idea behind that article seems to be that people are some sort of homogenous entity, all the same and that the wealth needs to be shared out as though wealth is something which can be carved up like a cake. Both ideas are false.
Mqurice |
