@vgr you mean because better info gets to the market about what people want if they spend their luxury money on goods and services?
-
-
Replying to @drethelin
.
@drethelin No, because it frames redistribution as Randian burden freely borne rather than paying society back for use of shared resources1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin Nope, you're forgetting opportunity costs, social costs borne by others etc. Redistribution has a basis in payback as for roads1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @drethelin
@vgr like give me some actual examples of what you mean by philanthropy compared to the government interacting in the same field1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin See Jacobin article I started with. Idea of universal healthcare being funded by charity. Godawful idea rife with moral hazard.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin Yes, but it at least eliminates some kinship biases, tragedy of commons etc.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@drethelin "some" not equals "all"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.