Posted: Apr 07, 2014 9:03 am
by minininja
laklak wrote:The only people I've ever seen arguing your strawman position are living in compounds out in the woods, waiting for the asteroid strike or Yellowstone eruption. They're the lunatic fringe, and their position is no more relevant to current Libertarian thought than Joe Stalin's musings are to U.S. Democrats or UK Laborites.

The trouble is we've all heard far too much from Seth over the years. :shifty:

The points of contention are who decides what comprises the collective good and at what point the good of the many override the rights of the one. You draw your lines differently than I do. You think inherited wealth is bad, or if not actually "bad" than at least not so "good" as to insure it stays with the people it's willed to. You believe the collective has a better moral and ethical claim on that wealth than the hereditary beneficiaries. I disagree.

So what do you think about vast inequalities of wealth amounting over multiple generations? About the extreme inequalities of opportunity it leads to? The effects it has on an economy? The effects it has on democracy as a small minority of extremely wealthy people can buy all sorts of political influence?