>>70256999
Bump.

I wanna hear some discussion on this too.

>>70258203
I mean, I'm not trolling or anything.
This keeps me awake at night.

>>70256999
How could you "enforce" meritocracy? Employers also have families who they naturally and rightfully love more than all others. Also, wouldn't it be more libertarian to allow employers to hire whomever they want and inheritances to whomever they're intended for?

it undermines it to some extent because you would want people who are not worthy not to receive reward.

However as long as the people who are worthy do still receive reward, it is still a meritocracy.
And yes it is still the case that anyone can work hard in school, get a means-tested bursary or scholarship to go to university (in countries like the uk and america at least) and get a good job or start their own successful business.

The sufficient condition for a meritocracy is : if you are worthy then you are rewarded. IT is not that only those who are worthy are rewarded.

So there is no hypocrisy.
Besides who would you stop inheritance? If you made inheritance tax 100% people would just leave their money before they die. and would you make that illegal too? How much personal liberty would you infringe upon?

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
If a man has worked and already been taxed on that money he has earned, why should he not use that money however he sees fit? Whether it be keeping it himself or giving it away to charity or giving it to another human being who happens ot be related?

File: Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg (1 MB, 948x1200) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 948x1200

>>70256999

Surprisingly, no. Inheritance is progressive because the fortune whittles down across the generations. So a person has to divide his assets in thirds each time, and each successor would have to generate enough wealth to make up the difference. This is, however, extremely unlikely, and therefore there is a natural regression to the mean across time.

The real problem is tax avoidance more-so than inheritance. If fortunes can be taxed, then it's irrelevant when they are passed down, because there will be revenue earned from the fortunes across time. It's irrelevant how many 'hands' it falls under, because what's more important is keeping the society and markets healthy rather than trying to break down some dynasty.

The REAL problem of the extremely wealthy is that they can have tremendous political power without any level of political skill. 'Billionaries' are prone to creating large scale political crises from their own ineptitude, then forcing the state to come in and bail them out from the political criseses they've made in the first place. Sometimes however, the problems they create are so great that no amount of intervention can even save them.

There is a clear-cut answer here, and it isn't even that controversial, but sometimes we forget it. Most empires throughout history do manage to keep the 'fringe billionaire' in line but their are notable examples of empires failing because they don't set boundries. The Roman Empire and the Roman Republic are one example, pic related is another example.

>>70258789
meritocracy is an important aspect of most minimal state ideologies that can be traced back to classical liberalism (i.e not left wing minimal state ideologies). Part of the efficiency of capitalism is due to it empowering meritocracy rather than the quasi feudal inheritance of position that (in europe) came before it

The inheritance of wealth or positions of power would undermine this tenant....and yet to control inheritance would necessitate MASSIVE government intervention into people's personal lives.

>>70259213
To argue that there's no hypocrisy you'd have to come up with something quite substantial to prove that disparity in personal wealth doesn't convert into positions of power and influence (in government, buisiness etc)......which is something I have a problem with.

>>70259305
Also it's impossible for fortunes to grow up into an unhealthy size if the taxes remain there in the first place. Why? Because the tax revenue goes into improving the society and the marketplace thereby giving more opportunity to others, while preventing those with wealth having an insurmountable advantage.

Any ideology that doesn't seriously engage with equality of opportunity should not pretend to be for "meritocracy"

>>70259696
but surely the level of intervention needed to ensure that the massively wealthy don't have an insurmountable advantage would undermine a minimal state ideology

>>70259890
I was trying to keep this away from "positive freedoms" etc as the thread will inevitably turn to a left V right shitfest

>>70260103
Okay. Now you are about to enter into other dimensions. You don't need a State to limit the massively wealthy. The proof is the Middle Ages.

The biggest check against the Wealthy used to be Christianity, and it was a code of ethics which basically put 'checks and balances' on the Nobility. For instance, Christians outright outlawed Usury and it was just cause to stab a banker. Furthermore they shamed the Wealthy into donating tithe to run their social organizations, and eliminated alot of the privileges wealth offered. Far from being an unequal society, the Middle Ages was rather normal, because the rich weren't as rich as we believe, and the poor weren't as poor as we would think. (At least from what I learned.)

Christianity's pull was to establish a set of norms on all the Wealthy that they had to obey to some extent. If they didn't, they would be fair gain for being axed by other Nobles. And what made it work even better was that Christian norms actually produced sensible people AND the Church was a Trans-national welfare organization.

Here is one last point. We put in the State because we didn't want to have to be governed by just one code of ethics. Libertarians forget that their actual government is Monarchism, because it allows for everything they wanted. But they also forget that the greatest enemies of 'proto-libertarians' were Theocrats not Statists.

Nobody would ever know this shit unless they dropped political correctness. For more information, go check out the HRE vs the Pope during the Investiure crisis.

>>70256999
Yes. Gotta deal with inconvenient truths conservatives. Keep your inheritance.

No it doesn't, because success/merit would still correlate with having successful parents regardless.

all this would be is yet another way to redistribute wealth to dindus and encourage them to reproduce more while dis-incentivizing whites from reproducing. It's literally dysgenic

>>70260904
Don't get me wrong. It wasn't perfect then. But the Middle Ages lasted for a thousand years, and things that work last for a long time. (Our Constitution is relatively old for a reason.)

>>70260904
you're comparing a feudal system to an advanced capitalist system.

what equivalent to a Christian church's function in limiting wealth accumulation is there in a capitalist, market-drive economy apart from the state?

>>70256999
It doesn't, the "unworthy" will lose it and the worthy will use it to create something great.

The work of your ancestors shouldn't be squandered or taken by the government to waste.

>>70256999

what argument do you have against it other than "WAAAAA ITS NOT FAIR I WANT SOME MONEY TO!"

>>70261636
And here's the heart of the matter. A Capitalist, market-driven economy that limits wealth accumulation without having a state would be 'Theocratic driven.' It would be even worse for Libertarians.

Why do you think Classical Liberals were so interested in advocating for a State? Unlike spoiled brats like Nozick, "Classical" Libertarians like Locke and Hobbes grew up in era where Cromwell was engaging in a motherfucking cultural revolution.

Do you think there was a "state" when Pol Pot and Mao did their shit? Fuck no. It was just mobs of people driven by one belief system beating the shit out of everything they could get their hands on. The State, far from being 'the Communist monster,' was ESSENTIAL for the protection of free thinkers. Otherwise, the Theocrats (ISIS) or the Nobility would wind up having all the coercive power.

Dude. The Roman Empire was notoriously 'Statist' and yet it governed over an era of unprecedented globalism.

Libertarianism and 'limited government' is doomed long term because it's followers are spoiled brats who dont understand why Liberals advocating for a State in the 16th Century.

>"Look how free I am in a world without government."
>"Pay Jiza."
>"What? How can you make me pay a tax? There is no govern-"
>Stabs Nozick.

>>70262054
not sure if you've read what has beent said in this thread thus far, I don't have an answer for it and as someone who is committed to minimal state intervention, I find it deeply troubling

>>70256999
Inheritance is naturally classical liberalism. Why should being dead (vs alive) change who you want to give your money to?

Capitalism is private ownership, not meritocracy. There is no contradiction here.

>>70262739
because it undermines meritocracy...an important aspect of classical liberalism.

>>70262739
>>70262863
would be helpful if you read the thread properly before interjecting

>>70262416
I guess I need to be more positive and nicer. I apologize if I came off too abrasive. But the number one problem of the "minimal state argument" is that it doesn't even consider that there are alternative coercive structures besides the State, and both of them would be even worse for Libertarianism. (Clans or Theocracies or States, take your pick.)

>>70263282
>>70262416
>>70260904
>>70259696
really enjoyed your contributions. definite food for thought.
not an easy circle to square.

thanks tho.

Goodnight