Comments on: Redistribution Isn’t About Sympathy

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:45:38 +0000

I suspect that grabbing goes on in all societies and has been true throughout history. You can probably find examples in every culture and also among animals.
Chimps live in tribal groups and are always taking things from each other. My 2 dogs steal food from each other even though I separate them at feeding time. and they never go hungry. So grabbing goes on at many levels. Forget all the economic theories.
This is more basic and universal.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:41:36 +0000

The Yanomamo are primitive agriculturalists, not hunter-gatherers. I believe the people Bryan Caplan discusses here are agriculturalists though.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:35:50 +0000

Our ancestors would sometimes notice that some folks in the tribe had a lot more tangible portable stuff than the rest, and those with less would then be tempted to find an excuse to grab a bunch of that stuff.

A problem with this theory is that, in hunter-gatherer societies, it is typically the rich (“rich” meaning being a physically powerful person with numerous/powerful relatives/subordinates/allies) who grab from the poor. See Chagnon’s Among the Yanomamo.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:28:44 +0000

What do you think sustainable development is if not re-distribution to poorer eras?

I know someone who takes a dim view of sustainable anything, including economics, on the theory that the future will inevitably be richer than the present, and therefore we should rob it whenever possible.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:19:15 +0000

Robin wrote,

(Hence our hyper-willingness to believe the rich freely violate treasured norms.)

Meanwhile, in my world, we are much faster to suspect the poor than the rich of violating norms. The police, security guards, and, well, all of us, watch poor people much more closely than rich people. When was the last time you crossed the street to avoid walking past a businessman late at night?

By: US

US — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:21:03 +0000

Territory? (relevant for hunting, gathering, water supply, amount of natural (non-human) enemies ect.)

Food? (Grab the dead grizzly bear the other tribe just killed and eat it yourself. This is a lot less work than killing it yourself)

Females? (need I elaborate?)

There were plenty of stuff to steal in tribal pre-agricultural societies as well. That “grabbing” didn’t take place much back then is just wrong. There wasn’t much to grab compared to now, but to grab even a little still could make a very big difference in the long run. It could easily be a difference of life and death.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:11:11 +0000

Wow, I’ve never seen progressive taxation argued for in this way before. I think I may steal this justification. It’s very good + original!

By: TCK

TCK — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:55:55 +0000

Charity to the boring is paying attention to them anyway, or even better, motivating them to become more curious, more interested and therefore more interesting.

Charity to the ugly would be to focus on the other things they have to offer. Although I think the idea of inherent ugliness is rather silly. Ugliness correlates strongly with lack of health, something which can often be changed. If someone is healthy, fit and happy, can they be anything but beautiful in the aspects that really matter?

By: TCK

TCK — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:43:20 +0000

Would you risk your life for a loaf of bread right now? Probably not.

What if you and your family were on the verge of starvation? You probably would.

A loaf of bread clearly has different utilities to different people.

By: bob smith

bob smith — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:24:08 +0000

The fact that you have money and yet can be this clueless blows a gaping hole in the meritocracy theory.