Comments on: Let the free market eat the rich!

By: Equality – In Three Senses

Equality – In Three Senses — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:29:42 +0000

[...] bargaining power over repeated transactions. If the abolition of the state would indeed lead to a “natural, mean personal wealth value, beyond which diminishing returns enter quickly, and belo…, this is an argument for the state, not against it! Inequality of wealth – sometimes vast – is [...]

By: The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism | Bleeding Heart Libertarians

The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism | Bleeding Heart Libertarians — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:01:16 +0000

[...] Left-libertarians share with other leftists the conviction that the redistribution of wealth can be appropriate or even required. But they deny that redistribution may reasonable be undertaken to bring about a particular pattern of wealth distribution or that it is properly the work of the state. Rather, they suggest, redistribution ought to be effected by the legal system (as it restores to people resources unjustly taken from them or their predecessors in interest, as it makes assets stolen by the state or acquired unjustly by its cronies available for homesteading, and as it denies validity to state-secured privileges that preserve the economic positions of the well-connected while keeping others poor), through solidaristic mutual aid, and through the tendency of a market liberated from privilege to “eat the rich.” [...]

By: Nonymous

Nonymous — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:57:37 +0000

“Murray Rothbard’s support of syndicalist takeover of State-supported corporations”

He backed off from that view, and the only reason he argued in favor of such things in the first place was to try and ally with the growing New Left (though he quickly realized the stupidity of the movement and split off from it).

By: Don’t fear the free market, part 3: Rich and poor « The Rule of Freedom

Don’t fear the free market, part 3: Rich and poor « The Rule of Freedom — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:25:36 +0000

[...] taxpayers to pay for the defense of their property. (Find a more robust discussion of this topic here.) The police protect the rich and beat the poor, and yet everyone is paying for [...]

By: Compendium of Sources to Learn About Anarchism

Compendium of Sources to Learn About Anarchism — Sat, 07 May 2011 09:02:47 +0000

[...] Let the Free Market Eat the Rich [...]

By: Redistribution and the State — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Redistribution and the State — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Sun, 01 May 2011 06:26:59 +0000

[...] Generally speaking, these are good ideas, though obviously actually getting to a point where we could undo patent law and zoning codes altogether would require a hugely steep uphill political battle. Indeed, many of Gary’s ideas would require enormous political will and resources, so even if they are not government solutions per se they are nonetheless solutions which the government will inevitably be a part of. Indeed, my example – organized labor – would require a political solution as well: repeal of Taft-Hartley and the Wagner Act in particular. All non-state solutions nonetheless require political process – which can make good libertarian policies really hard to actually achieve. 2. The operation of a freed market. When privileges are absent, capitalization costs are lower, and more people can enter the market. The result is more enthusiastic competition—and, of course, the practical effect of competition is to reduce profit margins and to make it harder for people to preserve entrenched economic positions. Freeing the market is itself an act of revolutionary redistribution, because, as Jeremy Weiland emphasizes, the free market will “eat the rich.” [...]

By: State vs. social redistribution

State vs. social redistribution — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:57:26 +0000

[...] 2. The operation of a freed market. When privileges are absent, capitalization costs are lower, and more people can enter the market. The result is more enthusiastic competition—and, of course, the practical effect of competition is to reduce profit margins and to make it harder for people to preserve entrenched economic positions. Freeing the market is itself an act of revolutionary redistribution, because, as Jeremy Weiland emphasizes, the free market will “eat the rich.” [...]

By: Martin Fick

Martin Fick — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:27:42 +0000

“It’s the distribution of the wealth over more people that necessarily makes that wealth easier to defend. And since everybody has basically the same amount of stuff, nobody has an interest in taking advantage of, nor stealing from, others.”

This seems flawed in other ways too. Are you supposing that having more or less stuff than your neighbor makes you more or less likely to want to steal from them? If you suppose that having more than them makes you less likely to want to steal from them, than why do you assume that the rich try so hard to steal from the poor via state intervention? If it’s the opposite, than why is burglary and petty theft much more prevalent in poorer inner city neighborhoods? I think that reality hints that in neighborhoods with more people and less stuff it is actually harder to protect stuff.

By: Martin Fick

Martin Fick — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:16:54 +0000

This supposes that wealth is mostly stuff that people have. I think that this is not really true. Large portions of most middle class wealth is their land and their stuff, true. But for the wealthy, this is usually a fairly small portion of their wealth. Most of their wealth is likely title to things which create wealth: investments. So as far as stuff is concerned, shouldn’t the cost of: protecting their stuff with respect to the earnings they make via investments, be proportionally less than someone with more stuff compared to investments? If so, then the cost to protect their stuff should have less of an impact on their wealth than it does on a poorer person.

Your conclusion seems to rely on the premise that wealthy people could not have large investments, just stuff they need to protect. While some of those people exist even today, they tend to not keep their fortunes very long (which is somewhat the consequence you suggest). However, this ignores the fate of those who do live more reasonably and invest more wisely, those who insure that their consumption is less than their savings.

By: Ivan K

Ivan K — Sun, 30 May 2010 19:44:32 +0000

Hi
Coming from Europe, there´are very big differensens between our histoies, but the point I get of the human natures greedy side and the State being guardian for it, is spot on to me. Here in Denamrk we have a very strong state, and all one sees are average people trying to act like the rich by speculating; wich is , to me, a direct way to a destruction of the state it self; since greed not is a social act.
Sorry for the short reply, but english is not my first nor second language and I need to post your point right away on my blog(in danish)
thanks
Ivan k