Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!fagin From: fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Sten Fagin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism & Luck Message-ID: <4245@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 16:56:25 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.4245 Posted: Thu Jan 17 16:56:25 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 03:43:31 EST References: <272@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <547@ccice2.UUCP> <428@whuxl.UUCP> Reply-To: fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 97 Summary: Who said what: >> > Tim Sevener >> Brad Miller > Tim's reply to Brad My reply to Tim >> >At any rate, it is evident why Nozick is concerned to demonstrate that >> >market outcomes are just: Nozick's minimal state is not allowed to >> >"correct" market outcomes by redistribution of wealth, even though, as Hayek >> >admits, market outcomes depend to a great extent on luck. We thus see, not >> >for the last time, how the defense of the minimal state is linked to the >> >defense of capitalism. >> >> Ok, I have no problem with that statement. So what? Life is a bitch, and then >> you die -- and that's the good news. You aren't going to eliminate luck in >> peoples lives by any statist approach, the luck will just be who controls the >> state, and who dies under it. >> >> Brad Miller >> -- > >Is it really true that we can't reduce the role of luck in people's lives? >Then what is the whole point of buying insurance? Obviously it is possible >to balance out the risks over a larger group of people and therefore >reduce the role of luck. Of course! In fact, insurance companies would play a major role in a libertarian society. Individuals can and do purchase insurance against the trials and tribulations of an uncertain world, and do so freely in the context of a market economy. This is an argument against government intervention, not for it. >Why should a few people gain all the benefits of the economic system >and many other people sustain the losses? Space forbids me to do more than simply comment that there is no "system" that creates and distributes wealth. In fact, PEOPLE create and distribute wealth, so the benefits and losses about which Tim speaks are the benefits and losses of particular persons. >Is there really anything wrong >with balancing out such benefits and losses to a certain extent? Depends on how you do it, of course. You would use coercive means, no doubt, which human beings have natural rights against. As I'm sure you can guess, any voluntary means you choose will have my blessing . >Of course the major element of luck in any individuals whole life is >who she or he happens to be born to. Quite true. Should children born into wealth should be forced to change places with those in poorer families? Or do they have certain natural rights that render them immune against such claims? >Why should those born rich be able to go through their whole lives >without working at all (...) At all? If their wealth is not managed productively, it will disappear. So let's substitute "strenuously" for "at all". Those born to wealth are entitled to it iff their parents obtained it in a just manner. Since it is entirely possible to accumulate vast amounts of wealth in a just manner (happens all the time), it is entirely possible to be born to wealth in a just manner. Suppose J. Paul Getty were to leave his son a billion dollars. Doubtless you would perceive this as an unfair and unjust distribution of wealth, and would rectify it through coercive means. But if JPG were to leave a billion dollars to a struggling laborer, this would be OK? Does the justice of a distribution depend on the presence of biological connections between the participants? I think not. > (...) while others struggle just to make ends meet? because to make sure that noone struggles to make ends meet would require the coercion of those who disagree with you. That's a cold, hard fact about the social organization of free human beings. Of course, there are lots of other ways to better the lot of the starving, including charity and working to make our society a more prosperous one. Certainly the existence of vast inequality can inspire one to more noble deeds than the coercion of one's fellow citizens. >This is fair? No. >This is justice? Yes. Barry (This is my first posting to the net; please excuse any mistakes) -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley