From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!hocda!spanky!ka
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: BILLIONS and BILLIONS
Article-I.D.: spanky.243
Posted: Sat Mar 12 03:43:10 1983
Received: Sun Mar 13 07:03:37 1983
References: houti.230

[Sorry to flood	the net	with my	drivel;	this is	may last one I promise]

There are many "fair" ways to distribute money (and thus goods)
amoung a society, depending on your point of view:
  - Divide the money equally among all the members of society.
  - Distribute money based upon	the needs of the members.
  - Distribute the money based upon the	contributions of the
  members.
  - Provide individuals	unable to work with enough to meet their
  needs	and distribute money to	others based upon their
  contributions.

Pure (and therefore to a lesser	degree,	impure capitalism) is
fair by	the third defintions of	fair, but only by using	a rather
nonstandard definition of contribution:	 an individual's
contribution measured by how much money	he/she is given.  Thus if
a quack	convinces patients to come to him rather than obtaining
real medical treatment,	it is erroneous	to consider his	value to
society	to be negative;	he obviously deservers the money he makes
because	his patients are willing to pay	it.  Similarly,	if a
talented writer	makes who's works will be read for centuries to
come makes less	money than the pulp novellist who's name will be
forgotten in ten years time, obviously the pulp	novellist is
making the more	valuable cultural contribution.	 And finally, if
a person's parents believe decide to leave all their money to
him, then obviously he has earned it by	being a	good son, making
them like him, and generally being useful in helping his parents
enhance	their social standing.	Of course, the person who's
parents	are poor won't be as well rewarded for being a good son,
but that's fair	because	his parents, being less	wealthy, are
obviously less important to please.  (Don't be fooled by people
who quote the bit about	"all men are created equal" in the
Declaration of Independence; that refers only to political
equality.  We all know that each person's worth	as a human being
is determined by how much money	he is earns or is able to
convince other people to give him.)

This is	turning	into a flame--I	guess it's too late at night.  My
own belief is that something like the fourth element on	the list
is fairest, but	I don't	know quite how to measure the
contribution of	an individual.	And no,	I don't	believe	that
people do have an unlimited right to do	what they want to with
their own money	(particularly after they're dead) when it
conflicts with other moral principles, such as the notion that an
individual's wealth should be related to his contribution to
society.
				Kenneth	Almquist