I haven't thought about the aspect of our debt to collective knowledge.
It's true that we owe a lot to our society. If I couldn't find a doctor, a pharmacist, an Internet Service Provider, a supermarket I wouldn't be able to live.
But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
The fact that we don't live in a liberal economy may be true, and I'm probably too naive in my thinking.
I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
> But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
This is a very good question. One to which I hope to find an answer someday.
> I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
I too think that a market is a better solution for resource distribution than a centralized planning system. Let's get rid of incorporation. Level the playing field. Demolish the abomination of legal personhood. Minimize the capability of a market participant to externalize costs. There are many ways in which the current market implementation suck. Maybe we can fix it?
Wow :), "demolishing the abomination of legal personhood" is not needed. We need to fight monopolies and demolish market entry barriers not the "legal person".
The legal personality is a fundemantal concept of our law system. For example states are legal persons, that is how you can sue the state and get compensation. Publicly traded incorporations on the other hand are a bit tricky. My professor always said these types of corporations are the greatest invention since the steam engine.
Maybe we could further this analogy. Banning steam engines would've probably sustained the growth of industralization. Without industralization we could avoid the inhuman treatment of workers, the pollution. But at the same time, we wouldn't have improved, we wouldn't get to achieve the level of productivity we have today.
On the other hand the law of corporations is getting insanely complex and it must be simplified.
It takes time and stability to cultivate a healthy law culture, and at our current state I believe that new advancements in this field of law will be made.
If we could minimize corruption and try to stick to a Randian ethics standard, whilst providing free and decent healthcare and education, I believe that the society will continue to improve. I think it's not the idea of the current market that sucks, the problem is at our implementation.
It's true that we owe a lot to our society. If I couldn't find a doctor, a pharmacist, an Internet Service Provider, a supermarket I wouldn't be able to live.
But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
The fact that we don't live in a liberal economy may be true, and I'm probably too naive in my thinking.
I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.