tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post847768899959788473..comments2024-03-07T14:43:21.888-08:00Comments on Whatever I want to write about: Empathy and the social contractSriram Khéhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06907731254833435446noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-12230263139806043102016-10-09T21:29:33.018-07:002016-10-09T21:29:33.018-07:00I will concede this much--you have articulated you...I will concede this much--you have articulated your version of the social contract between the society and the individual.<br /><br />I want to get back to the example that Avent uses. Bill Gates has made gazillions. Could Gates have amassed that wealth if he were in the Central African Republic? The answer is easy--he could not have. Could Gates have made it that big back 200 years ago in France. He could not have.<br />Which means, there is something special about the very specific time period over which Gates was able to make his gazillions. Are we in agreement until now?<br /><br />The question then is how much Gates owes society for the special circumstances in which all these were possible. <br /><br />Bill Gates, his wife, and to Warren Buffett, have all made it abundantly clear--through their interviews and speeches over the years--that they fully recognize how lucky they were to have been in this special circumstances that made possible their gazillionaire status. Buffett refers to even being born in the USA as having won the "ovarian lottery." In addition to their humanitarian views, this is also a reason for them to turn almost all of their wealth over to the foundation that then spends it on various domestic and international projects. <br /><br />My point is this: We might want to believe that it is our hard work that earned us what we have, and it the lazy people who don't. All one needs is to travel to developing countries where people work incredibly harder than most Americans do. Yet, their earnings are peanuts compared to here. They are poor, or poorer, not because they are lazy but because they are working in circumstances that are very different from the circumstances in which Gates's gazillions could happen.<br /><br />Now, perhaps you are ready with, "if Gates could make it, then people from his age could have also made it." A simple example would suffice here: The context in which a young teenage black boy grew up in Alabama were very different from the context in which the teenage Gates grew up. It is almost like the teenage boy in Alabama was in a different country altogether. Heck even the teenage white boy in Spokane would have been in a "foreign" country compared to Gates's context. <br /><br />We can keep building scenarios like this. It is not as simple as you make it out to be, at least in your comments. After all, even all public schools are not created equally, which is why parents even try devious tricks to get their kids to a better public school in the same city, right? <br /><br />At the end of the day, we perhaps will disagree, whether we are parasites or not. Sriram Khéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06724218458246880137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-47006698537294923932016-10-09T12:58:06.422-07:002016-10-09T12:58:06.422-07:00I have read the article in full and haven't ch...I have read the article in full and haven't changed my opinion.<br /><br />If a person works hard and is rewarded as such, why must he be forced to hand over more of his hard-earned money? He already pays income taxes, payroll taxes perhaps, other business taxes perhaps, property taxes, etc. He gives raises and bonuses as well as medical insurance and other benefits to his employees. He undoubtedly donates to a variety of charities. He is already redistributing his wealth. He is already contributing to society.<br /><br />Avent says that since all people contribute to rich societies all people deserve a share of the benefits. Fallacy. Not all people contribute; some are parasites and deserve to be poor (contrary Avent's later statement). They do not deserve a share of any benefits if they are not willing to contribute. <br /><br />Regardless of his level of contribution to society, every American already shares in the benefits of that society. Every American can attend school through 12th grade at no cost. If he does well, he can attend community college for free. They have police and fire departments, safe interstate transportation, safe food and medicines, a fair justice system, a military for protection, etc. They have a ridiculously generous unemployment program. There is Social Security and Medicare (we hope) when they are older. Isn't this sharing in the benefits of a rich society? <br /><br />All people, rich or poor, have an obligation to care for everyone else. It is not the government's job to force citizen to do so or to define in what ways and to what level.<br />Anne in Salemnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-20393453374848474382016-10-07T23:08:35.692-07:002016-10-07T23:08:35.692-07:00When you come at it questioning the very need for ...When you come at it questioning the very need for redistribution, all I can do is merely re-direct you to the essay from which I had excerpted all that.Sriram Khéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06724218458246880137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-35036528668428056182016-10-06T21:43:10.636-07:002016-10-06T21:43:10.636-07:00Why redistribute? Perhaps I need better understan...Why redistribute? Perhaps I need better understanding of redistribution. If a person earns a lot of money, why should he not be allowed to keep it? Just because his parents were rich or because he was able to afford Harvard? He should be penalized for having a brilliant idea and working hard for many years? If a person works hard, spends wisely and saves carefully, he should be allowed to keep whatever money he generates. Notice I am not addressing inherited wealth.<br /><br />Is philanthropy part of wealth redistribution? Is the Gates Foundation's support of educational initiatives similar to subsidizing education for youth? Does the anti-malaria campaign play a part in redistribution? What about more immediate needs of those to whom you (I suppose) wish to redistribute the wealth - contributions to food banks, homeless shelters, job training programs?<br /><br />We have a moral obligation to care for each other. Handouts are not the way. There is so little dignity in welfare when compared to the satisfaction of a full day's work and wages earned.<br />Anne in Salemnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-91324151483547980962016-10-06T15:30:17.288-07:002016-10-06T15:30:17.288-07:00First a correction: I never wrote that one should ...First a correction: I never wrote that one should stop watching basketball--2 hours of entertainment should be matched by 2 hours of thinking about what it means to be human ;) "If only we spent at least as much time thinking about what it means to be human as we spend on entertaining ourselves" is what I had written.<br /><br />Second, another correction: Basketball is poison, yes. Not Nabokov. ;)<br /><br />As for what is an appropriate level of redistribution ... we will always disagree. The good thing about you (haha) is that you at least acknowledge the need for redistribution, and it is in the "how much" that we disagree.<br /><br />Finally, I am not a fan of redistribution to the elderly either. We agree on that. The existing social contract that diverts so much of its resources towards the older folks and away from the investment that we need to make on the young is a huge intergenerational theft and a crime. But, unless the youth revolt--which they won't--the elderly will continue to suck the system dry. In a matter of few years, I too will become one of the older people pushing my walker and yelling "keep your hands off my Medicare" ;)<br /><br />Sriram Khéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06724218458246880137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27946614.post-75049607794111733922016-10-06T08:06:45.291-07:002016-10-06T08:06:45.291-07:00A rich post full of ideas that can be thought abou...A rich post full of ideas that can be thought about and debated.<br /><br />I understand the comment about Bill Gates but will not necessarily agree with the rather sweeping implication that it is morally wrong for all that wealth to go to him. Of course all employees in a company contribute to the wealth creation that the company does. But Bill Gates in his capacity as a shareholder certainly deserves the wealth. In any case, whichever side of the argument anybody is in, it is far better for Bill Gates to have got that wealth than anybody else.<br /><br />You and I have significantly different views on redistribution of income or wealth. And it is not necessarily correlated with empathy or concern for fellow humans. India has become one of the more redistributive societies , especially over the last 10 years. A number of programmes of the government redistribute on a scale that would stun you as compared to even a decade ago. And yet greater prosperity for many Indians has come not from the redistribution at all, but from wealth generation.<br /><br />I also have significant problems with the relative needs of different groups when it comes to redistribution. I am completely against redistribution to the elderly, which is what a lot of programs are - defined benefit pension, unlimited Medicare / NHS , etc. I am totally for redistribution to children - subsidised education for example. Your views on who wealth must be redistributed to will be very different. In the end, each group will vociferously demand its rights for being the beneficiary. How do you ever resolve this.<br /><br />I totally endorse your view that redrawing the borders to encompass all of the human race. The "like us" syndrome is very real. <br />And yes, you are right in that all of us should think about this more. But that doesn't mean that we should not watch basketball either. Or read Nabokov !!! To each his own poison :)Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11782192840421019943noreply@blogger.com