2/17    "No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn
         money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic
         sense.)  And are not wealthy, and don't work for money,
         you do not deserve it.  -John"
        \_ ok, few Q's. 1) what if you won the lotto, is that meritocratic?
           2) suppose you simply got lucky, say during the dot-com days and
           got 5 million dollars even though the poor bozo around you worked
           just as hard, is that meritocratic? 3) suppose you inherited an
           apartment building and all you do is you hiring someone else to
           manage it for you, and you get good and consistent income from
           that. Is that meritocratic? 4) suppose your ancestors left great
           wealth to you and the wealth "self-generates" with minimal input,
           is that meritocratic?
           Lastly, for each of the question, if the answer is no, should the
           solution be to redistribute the wealth via brute force?
           \_ Are you asking what John thinks, what we (other random motd
              posters) think or what Ayn Rand would have thought?
              \_ asking what everyone thinks, just a survey, not expecting a
                 right wrong answer, just want to understand what and why you
                 guys have certain opinions. open ended question ya know  -pp
           \_ (1) Yes.  You invested, you got lucky.  Question the system if
              you will, not the winner's right to the money. (2) Yes.  Life
              is not fair, sorry.  If he's starving, you may take a moment to
              think about whether you have an ethical burden to help him or
              not, but this is your prerogative. (3) Yes.  It's capital.  It
              was earned at some point by someone, you received it through
              legal means. (4) Yes.  See (3).  Of course I'm ridiculously
              stretching the meaning of "merit", but I fail to understand
              the source of all the resentment directed at those with money
              obtained through legal means?  I always thought the American
              ideal (compared to some wacko European marxists I know) was not
              "hey, he's not supposed to have that", but "hey, how can I get
              that as well".  And if you're going to quote me, do me the favor
              of correcting my ass grammar, would you please?  -John
              \_ I don't resent the wealthy.  I do think that wealth reaches
                 the point of diminishing returns fairly rapidly, and that
                 it is better for the society for a billion dollars to be spent
                 on, say, public health care, than for Bill Gates to be worth
                 $51 billion instead of $50 billion.  -tom
                 \_ I don't know what the exact endowment of his foundation
                    is, but it's accomplishing exponentially more than the
                    same amount of money would in the hands of, say, NIH
                    bureaucrats.  Yes, if you rely on private charity you
                    can't guarantee the flow of money from the hands of the
                    wealthy, but it's also pretty obvious that, without the
                    choice of what to do with the money (hence the idea of tax
                    deductions, I guess) the money would go somewhere else
                    (i.e. a Cayman account) pretty quickly and nobody would
                    benefit from it.  -John
                    \_ The argument you just made--you can't tax the rich
                       because they'll just hide the money--is a lot different
                       than the one you started this thread with, don't you
                       think?  -tom
                       \_ (a) I didn't start the thread, (b) I didn't say you
                          can't tax the rich, I objected to the idea of
                          taxing the rich out of principle (as in "because
                          they're rich and we're not") and (c) I'm pointing
                          out economic realities which any society trying
                          to come up with a usable and just taxation model
                          must consider--that enforced equality is bunk, that
                          exorbitant taxes will be seen as theft (rightly imho
                          but that's just a subjective opinion) and that very
                          often private disbursal of funds is more effective
                          than government spending.  -John
           \_ Having read only Atlas Shrugged, I would say that Ayn Rand would
              reply as follows: (1) No. Lotto is theft. (2) Possibly, depends
              on what you did vs. what others did.  Did you create value? Did
              your work translate into $$? Or was it plain dumb luck? (3) Yes.
              Capital begets capital. It's smart investment. (4) Yes. See
              previous.  Although, given Ayn's philosophy, she would likely
              say for (3) and (4), that if the previous generation earned the
              money via superior intelligence, ability, etc., they would most
              likely also have trained their progeny to be "men of ability,"
              who would be able to further the family line.  Ayn believed in
              what John says above, and also believed that certain ppl had
              inherent qualities that made them "men of ability," and that they
              knew hard work, were intelligent and capable, and would thus
              naturally rise to the top in a meritocracy - a system that
              rewarded those who earned money, and not those who didn't.
              \_ I have also only read Rand's fiction, just Atlas Shrugged and
                 The Fountainhead. I am having trouble seeing where you get
                 (1) from.  I don't remember gambling being mentioned in
                 either book.  Personally, I agree with "no. lotto is theft",
                 but where's the evidence that Rand did?
                 \_ Privately run lotteries would not be considered theft.
                    Whether a publically ran lottery would be something Rand
                    agrees with is not a question I know the answer to.  In
                    some sense the question is moot because government ran
                    lotteries make, rather than lose, money.  She certainly
                    wouldn't say it was 'theft', she might possibly say this
                    sort of thing lies outside the juristiction of government.
                      -- ilyas
        \_ Wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a small minority
           of richer and richer landlords is a phenomenon seen in the
           dynastic cycle of China.  Usually, when a new dynasty is
           founded, land is redistributed to make it more equitable, and
           taxation would be working well, then as the years passed by,
           wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer number of
           richer and richer landlords.  Wealth begets wealth and these
           landlords gain power and can bribe local officials or become
           officials themselves, and through corruption, they don't pay much
           taxes, and the central government starts having problem collecting
           taxes, and the tax burden goes increasingly to the small farmers,
           and the dynasty weakens and eventually fails.  This
           phenomenon was well observed and documented in China's history and
           they even have a term for it.  A little simplistic, and probably
           not entirely relevant to the modern world, but it's something to
           think about.
           \_ Very astute and accurate observation.  Equally interesting is
              to chart out what happens to healthy economies and societies
              when the rabble finds that it can help itself to the wealth
              of its prosperous members at gunpoint in the name of
              democracy and equality (French revolution, Soviet revolution,
              Zimbabwe, Uganda under Idi Amin, etc.)  -John
              \_ The idea is that if the problem the poster above you
                 mentioned is not dealt with, it may eventually lead
                 to the problem you stated.
                 \_ Also completely accurate--however it's an fascinating to
                    compare upheaval-type attempts to redistribute wealth to
                    more gradual ones (viz. growth of tax systems in western
                    countries since 1700.)
                    \_ Yes, the gradual ones are known as 'boiling the frog.'
           \_ Of course, there is also a Chinese proverb that says wealth
              doesn't survive past 3 generations.  BTW, what is the chinese
              term that describes the phenomenon you described?
              \_ I only remember the second character is "tian2" as in
                 farm land.
        \_ I wonder how Marx and other various famous political theorists
           would respond to this question.
        \_ Take my girlfriend.  She just got her master in human
           resources from a above average school.  She is very capable and
           driven and I am sure she will do well in her career.  But
           because she is a foreign student, doesn't have any US working
           experience,  and also her English is not very
           good at all, after a few months of job search, all she got was
           a $47000 offer from a tiny company in the middle of nowhere.
           So she called up her wealthy and successful cousin who knows many
           wealthy and successful people, and viola, she got a $80000 job with
           nice annual bonuses of $20000+.  Now, people say most job offers
           are made through networking, but do you think this is meritocratic?
           \_ I don't.  I think networking is evil, and I don't do it
              professionally myself. -- ilyas
              \_ no wonder you don't have a job.  -tom
              \_ isn't academia very political as well? I get to know a few
                 people, write mediocre papers, submit to conferences in which
                 your buddies or your professor's buddies are chairmen of, and
                 get published? How about DARPA and NSF funding, don't
                 professors shmooz a lot to get those funding?
                 \_ Yes, academia is extremely political. -- ilyas
                 \_ Yes, academia is extremely political and schmoozy.
                    However, past a certain point, in academia (as in industry)
                    results speak for themselves without any of the crap.
                      -- ilyas
        \_ "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." -Honore de Balzac