Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Not meaning any offense, but how can both 1 and 2 be true? It seems to me that they're exactly contradictory, and the widespread problems of the great depression fell mostly on the shoulders of those on the wrong side of that "discrepancy."
|
I don't have a firm grasp on American history.
The robber barons are easy to vilify, but would America be better off never having them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Generally the laissez-faire argument goes something like this: those who don't succeed under that model either don't exist (a rising tide lifts all boats) or don't deserve to succeed (poverty is a moral failing). That would be nice if it were that simple--but the facts don't support it. Don't kid yourself--the playing field is not equal, and while it is not government's job to guarantee equality, it is up to government to build a polity that means that everyone CAN succeed regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
|
I disagree with that. The laissez-faire argument that I abide by says that a group is collectively better off with incentive. Some will not succeed, be it by luck, drive, health, and countless other factors, but the more equality is imposed on people the less incentive there is to improve one's condition. Ten selfish hunters will end up with more food than a pack of ten hunters.
Now, I might argue that North America doesn't need to improve our standard of living much further (the hunters have more food than they know what to do with) - but that's still my political ideology.