I have recently read a book called 'Freakanomics', which pointed out a correlation between the legalisation of abortion in the United States and a subsequent drop in the crime rate two decades later. The idea is that by legalising abortions, you kill off the children which would have been unwanted/neglected and as such quite likely to end up as criminals (there is of course a debate currently raging as to the validity of the claims made in the book). Have a search on the net and you'll find studies referring to a correlation between countries that have legalised abortions and that have a lower crime rate.

Now although this is not necessarily reason enough to legalise abortions, surely it is something to be considered in the political/ethical debate. Unfortunately, in this case and in many others, the factor cannot even begin to be considered seriously by policy makers because people find it too distasteful. This is not the only example of this either, in fact the entire concept of eugenics is effectively closed to discussion for this reason.

This leads me to the following conclusion: ethics, a school of philosophy with (as I understand it) the goal of doing 'what is right', is undone when it is approached from a moralistic viewpoint, as the moralist finds it hard to objectively consider that which they find morally repugnant. In other words, morality must be set aside to decide what is right.

Very interesting theory. Makes sense in a way. I find it hard to just isolate the legalisation of abortion in response to other things. I think many factors come in to play for reasons why there may be a drop or a rise in crime. There are some wacko theories out there surrounding abortion. For example the theory that Child abuse has gone up because abortions were legallised. I mean there could be a number of reasons why child abuse numbers have gone up. People aren't as afraid to talk about it or have something done about it so therefore numbers go up. Nothing to do with abortion.

The nice thing about that book is that everything it said (on a variety of topics, not just abortion) was very intuitive and made good sense.

Ideally we would have an island somewhere which would contain an 'experiment society', upon which various factors could be changed in order for us to study the results.

Perhaps in a few decades a complicated computer simulation could approximate this ideal.

In this day and age we need 5 (ya hear that, I said 5) Earths because the human population is so overloaded. It would be practical to legalise abortions simply to decrease the population growth and make resources more sustainable.

As for ethics, it's a matter of perspective. For example, I'm different to the Christians because I believe that abortions are acceptable (along with sterilization).

5 earths? You really think so? Couldn't humans just be more careful? I dunno I don't really feel that the earth is that overpopulated. Earth has its ways of population control as it is.

Approve of sterilisation? Are we talkign voluntary or involuntary?

According to UN, that's how serious overpopulation of our planet is. The engineering students were informed of the need to develop sustanably during their first year.

I'm talking about sterilizing undesirable people, mainly rapists and paedophiles with repeat convictions. Although, I wouldn't mind if such a program will be extended to include other felons with repeat offenses.

You see, I'm brave enough to admit that I support eugenics to a certain degree.

What would sterilising rapists and peodophiles do? Obviosly I haven't really studied the details of sterilisation but I am guessing it makes you sterile rather than unable to have sex. Peodophiles don't need to have sex in order to mess up a child.

Apart from sterilizing, there's always the good ounce of lead in a copper jacket...

The case for eugenics should start with the most sensible, scientific application of it, and work from there until we find where we want the line drawn. I have heard of at least one pair of deaf parents who want to deliberately have a deaf child so it will be like them... I would consider making something like this illegal a good place to start with eugenics (though this borders on the definition of the word), as deliberately handicapping ones child is an obvious case of child abuse.

A more controversial step, but also quite pragmatic and justifiable, would be preventing those people with serious genetically inheritible disabilities from having children (or at least, children with their genes... there would be nothing to stop them using sperm/eggs from other people).

In my opinion, it is unethical to have a child when one knows that one carries the burden of a serious genetic defect that the child may inherit.

In China for example, people with serious inheritable disabilities aren't permitted to reproduce. Which explains why the presence of retards in the world's most populous nation is much lower than in the West by proportion. If the retarded don't reproduce, then their potential offspring don't have to suffer the same cruel fates of nature as they did.

I would agree with people using science to create a baby that would be born without the gene that makes them sick. Not explaining myself well but you know when two parent's carry the gene and it means the woman isn't able to carry to full term or the child would be born with a disability. I think in those cases it is fine for them to "make" their own baby. However choosing how tall your child will be and the coulour of their hair and eyes is way too far.

Perhaps that is the next step up the human evolutionary ladder-instead of waiting for spontaneous mutation we use science to raise the race to a new plateau.

They did sterilisation here as well Adolf. Not that long ago either.. maybe in the alte 70s early 80's. it was still being done. The problem with it is that 2 healthy people can produce a disabled child and 2 disabled people can produce a helathy child. Sterilisation of anyone with a disability seems unfair and very cruel

Eugenics and population growth, fascinating stuff. Now, before I begin, Freakonomics is written by people who are very far out on the libertarian right and as much as a lot of their stuff seems extremely 'common sense', a lot of it isn't, and I think it's a case where the reality is a lot more complex than liberalisation and free markets.

I think one element both Adolf and Oob have missed out here with regard to disabled people/people with serious inheritable disorders is that you can simply make screening of a foetus compulsory before birth, and then provide free abortions for those who are carrying children that are carrying serious diseases. I think it's realistic and fair for the state to encourage abortions at that level, as the state itself (in places like New Zealand) is most likely going to shell out for these people's ongoing treatment.

I definitely agree Adolf that sterilisation is important for repeat sex offenders, not as a primitive form of punishment like many on the right of politics think today, but instead as a realistic measure to limit further offending. Then again, these sorts of people really shouldn't be reintegrated if they've really heavily reoffended and should just be in prison for their lives (When I say repeat offenders here, I mean people with something like over 20 seperate sexual offences against different people, the hardcore of the hardcore fuckups). No eye for eye shit, either way, and I am a staunch believer in the possibilities for rehabilitation of those who commit crimes (and I believe putting people in prison is a terrible thing that should be heavily restricted).

One thing I really think is actually quite important is legislation that limits female-oriented contraception to prevent spreading STDs (and to rabidly promote use of condoms). This will, relatively, hugely allow the lowering of costs of the State in healthcare, and thus eliminate any real economic justification for starting to dabble in very dodgy eugenic practises.

I've been reading about Singapore's historic, current and possible future public policy toward eugenics, birth control and such like. What is amazing is that they started programs to pay poor and uneducated people to get sterilised, while simultaneously trying to encourage female graduates from university to have as many children as possible with fucking HUGE financial incentives (you quite literally earn about 30 NZ grand per kid per year, I believe).

What is pretty interesting with Singapore is that the population simply doesn't really care about this, and thinks that the Government's policy to encourage the intelligent and wealthy people of Singapore to have more children is perfectly ethically acceptable. Which goes to prove a lot of ethics are hardly universal, and indeed a public policy book I was reading noted that the potentialities for cloning and other modern reproductive technologies being used within the context of eugenics (i.e. making the population 'smarter' and 'healthier' through genetic engineering) would probably not provoke a major reaction from Singaporeans.

I didn't get any impression of this from reading the book, in fact it made a deliberate point of not pushing a political philosophy of any kind. That said, there are certain concepts which economists in general tend to favour (such as the use of financial incentives), and the economist who co-authored this book was no exception.

Even if the genetic side of the equation is removed, this is beneficial simply in that the child will presumably be better raised by those parents which have been encouraged than those who have been discouraged from breeding.

This is generally the kind of thing I would like to see, I'm not a supporter of forced sterilizations and such, because it's that kind of shit which turned people away from eugenics in the first place. Realism > idealism, and in the real world solutions which are extremely distasteful to the public (such as forced sterilizations) are unlikely to be accepted in a democracy.

Well, I've not read it myself, but Scuzza told me that he found the book did lean toward libertarian ideology. Economists are not all libertarians, it's just the ones who get the most airplay in the West (and those, like Levitt, who are part of the infamous pit of evil that is the University of Chicago), and I think these sorts of books are no exception. But I'll take your word for it, and from what I've read about the book it seems to not be particularly ideologically influenced and simply interesting explorations of sociological phenomena.

I would agree with you if they allowed the mothers to retire or such, but the problem is that they are particularly obsessed with getting employed, university-educated mothers to have more kids. The problem this creates is that they are already in difficult professional careers, and so they thus give sizeable portions for childcare. This means that the parents become increasingly reliant on childcare, and thus give less attention than they probably should to their kids.

Agreed. I think it's a perfectly legitimate concern for populations to be worried if there is relatively wide-spread state-sanctioned sterilisation, as for once it's established that it's ethically acceptable to sterilise criminals, it will become a lot easier to start sterilising the poor, political opponents and such. Hence my extremely tentative support for sterilisation of only the most dangerous sexual threats to society.

I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps if they only encouraged the first couple of children, such that the mothers would be able to strike an appropriate balance between having a career and child raising. It depends on the career they're pursuing as well, some careers would lend themselves better to taking a break for maternity leave than others would.

I'm not talking about sterilising those (even just one spuse) with mental or physical disabilities, my idea is that, if they checked out that the baby in the womb isn't O.K., have an abortion.

It's perfectly ethical in my opinion, since the poorly educated are actually dumb enough to get sterilized for a few thousand bucks! LOL. Cloning however, will spark a lot of debate from the Singaporean, just as anywhere else. Improving a nation's gene pool through thinning out the weak (in a civilized manner) is a noble cause.

Three or four events of rape (spread over a period of time, with prisons sentences between each), should be enough for sterilization. I wonder if sterilization will destroy libido completely? If not, then we'll have to resort to good ol' castration!

Technically if you put someone in hard labour (but with adequate food and healthcare), they are working for their freedom from imprisonment. I believe that hard labour is perfect for punishment and rehabilitation.

Well, that's disappointing, I was about to announce my full blown support for forced labour and other sinister plans... :chiang:

Whoever that's first to turn a retard back to normal should be awarded two f*ckin' Nobel Prizes for Medicine! The State's welfare should be focussed on the genuinely disadvantaged, and not the perpetually disadvantaged (such as the retarded). The sooner we eliminate such occurrences from our gene pool, the sooner we become a better place.

OMG....that is so very very wrong in so many ways.

If you don't like it, you can go get sterilized! :hilarious:

Apart from the fact that Singapore has had hugely declining fortunes recently, even through decades of state eugenics planning. You still have a nation of people with poor eye-sight, an economy in a weaker state than decades ago and an aging population that is going to be very difficult to treat, even with Singapore's meagre health insurance coverage. Perhaps it means something, that it's not actually working...

Wrong. Look at the Soviet Union and China. The people just became embittered, force labour is extremely inefficient (as it costs more to run than it gains), and it does the total opposite of rehabilitation as I stated.

Well, once someone is born, the State should take a role in maximising their output. The 'retarded' can be efficient, even if they aren't part of mainstream society, and there is no point in wasting any form of physical potential. People who are physically disabled do not lack mental abilities, either, and from a cold hearted viewpoint are still perfectly capable of contributing to society.

From a cold hearted point of view, when the cost of maximising the output of the person exceeds the value of their output then there isn't much point. Especially if that effort spent on maximising their output could be spent maximising the output of several non-physically disabled people.

I don't know about the Soviet fuckin' Union. In China, the institutional rates of the labour camp system is high (former inmates may return as their criminal records will hinder them from finding work or marriage). Also, some forms of particularly intensive labour will cause prolonged health problems later in life. Personally, would you rather have them live in the five-star hotels that we call prison in this country, or should the offenders be punished through hard labour to benefit society in some way?

There eugenics is clearly working. The Singaporeans are among the smartest nations in the world all thanks to eliminating the dimwits (especially those who are dumb enough to 'sell' their fertility). The economic decline caused by the opening up of the Chinese economy is not only felt by Singapore, but also in HK and Taiwan. The ageing population is a sure sign that a nation is considered advanced (the U.S., Europe and Japan all have the same 'problem'). Educated and richer peoples don't have the need or want to breed as often.

Poorer eyesight can be a trait of a society that focusses on education. Some in China have over 50% of their students wearing spectacles as a result of years of reading continually. Nevertheless, both Singaporean and Chinese education systems are top notched.

People who are physically disabled by a genetic condition are not free from contributing to society, however it should be their greatest contribution that no further copies of themselves will be put on this Earth.

As for the mentally retarded, well... they're a sad bunch from the cradle to the grave. By "physical potential" are you thinking of human shields?

I'm believe that the State should look after the disabled, especially those that have been disabled during the service of the country. A better solution would be to implement eugenic policies to prevent more examples of the genetically disabled from entering this world, so that the State can care for the genuinely disadvantaged.

A true cold hearted analyst would actually look at social values/repurcussions: your view simply incorporates the free-market capitalist perspective on human life, which can't be used purely unless we live in a free-market capitalist context (which we don't).

There is a complex value-cost framework for killing off those whose economic output does not exceed the value of costs that are spent on them. If the State kills a handicapped person who is of limited economic use to scoiety, there will be a social backlash in all modern Western societies like New Zealand, France and the United States. This social backlash toward symbols of authority is highly likely to outweigh the potential benefits from the eradication of handicapped people reliant on the State, whether in a democracy (due to utter public outrage) or in a non-democratic state (where the response could well start off a public campaign against a government).

Here's a thread with a poll you might be interested in:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Craccum/index.p...view=getnewpost

I never said that we should live in a purely free market society (such a society does not exist). I've also never supported the notion that we should euthanaze the retarded. However, if we prevent them from breeding, they will create less people of their suffering, and society would be a better place.

As I said before, killing off the current numbers of the retarded would just be like Nazi Germany. However, public opinion may be supportive of eugenics policies against breeding more people into suffering. Singapore may be non-democratic, nonetheless there has been few public outcries or harboured resentments against their eugenics practices. In the overpopulated nation of China, many believe that society should be reserved for the capable and deserving, quite frankly, the mentally handicapped and their ability to produce more of such copies are just invlid as their minds.

Who are you to say the retarded do not deserve to live? God? What if I said because Asians are generally shorter and weaker and have smaller penii than white people they should be wiped out too? What about all the family members of anyone with MS? What if I decided that you were morally inefficient and chopped of your nads because I don't want you to have kids. Society does not allow me this because who am I to say your morals are so wrong that your right to breed should be removed. And who are you to say whether someones life is worth living?

Why not just make it so only people with an IQ above 150, no genetic disease history etc are the only people allowed to breed?

Forced steralisation is fucked up, and if it ever happens i'm going to start stabbing fucks in the balls.

Also, paying the poor to steralise is fucked up. They're forced into a desperate situation by society, they aren't stupid, they're starving. LolL

Your argument for justifying the destruction of races is invalid. No race is mentally retarded.

What the fuck are you talking about? There is no scientific evidence to suggest that different race have greatly varying penis sizes. So what if Asians are generally shorter and less muscular? They have better IQ than the Europeans.

People with IQs below 150 are usually normal. 150 is beyond the statistical bell curve.

Not all cases of poverty are forced upon by society. If one chooses not to work, should he deserve to eat? Goddamn socialists just want to mobilize the poor into a fighting force.

Penis

No, not everyone in poverty is forced there, but many many are. Believe it or not, no matter how lazy someone is they generally like having food in their stomach, clothes, warmth, and being able to have kids.

It's beyond me that some of you righties believe that everyone in poverty is there because they're lazy and believe we should treat them accordingly. How out of touch are you? Have you ever been close to poverty? It's a fuck load worse than working.

That just means that people with an IQ of 150+ are superior intellectually to the vast majority of the normal population, making them more mentally efficient.

I rather no frequent homosexual websites! Here is a generally indepth source of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_s..._and_penis_size

My parents starved through most of their childhood, I can relate to that. Before I started living here, I saw beggars in the streets every fuckin' day!

I wasn't talking about killing them, I was talking about resources spent on their education/health/etc... The private sector should handle this (in other words, the family of the person should pay for it themselves).

The asian penis joke was tacky and unneccesary, I apologise. But google.com ain't a homosexual site.

Were your parents poor because they were lazy? It was more likely that they were poor because they lived in China. It seems that the majority of the worlds poor work harder than almost any person in the West, yet will remain in poverty their entire lives, and most likely so will their children. You believe that's fair?

However, we're discussing NZ right? In New Zealand, anyone can at least become lower middle class (which is pretty comfortable when compared to a lot of things) if they work hard enough. However, this wouldn't be possible without social welfare, the poor would not be able to go to school, more would have to leave early to work than already do etc.

It seems to me, policies such as the one discussed in this post, and many other right wing attacks on welfare for the poor are based on some kind of assumption that we are low on resources. I could understand considering extreme measures if there just wasn't enough to go around, but there's more than enough. The problem, in my opinion is the distribution of wealth.

There's more than enough to go around in most Western countries, but the wealthiest people take far more than in my opinion is their fair share. I couldn't find anything on NZ wealth distribution but this is a pie chart of American wealth distribution.



1% of the population control 38% of the wealth, and in America that's a fuckload of wealth. Now I guess you probably believe that because they have the wealth they deserve it because you seem like someone who believes fully in uncontrolled capitalism, though I might be wrong. However, I don't believe Greed is a good thing, and I don't believe a system which not only encourages greed, but almost forces it upon people for survival is a good system. However it is tolerable due to social welfare. If vital services such as education and health are free and good, and there is adequate support for the poor so that no one starves.

However I personally believe a sliding tax scale going way up there for the wealthiest would be a better system. If billionaires make anything clear, it's that no amount of money will ever be enough.

If you don't have enough money, don't complain about the poor, complain about the rich.

In an ideal world I would agree, but in the real world that would only encourage billionaires to further hide their earnings, move out of the country, etc. Overtaxing the rich would kill the golden goose.

I'm surprised I haven't been lynched by commerce students for my post. Maybe Chiangs busy.

That is true, it always cracks me up the amount of people who whine about 'dole bludgers' and people who cheat the benifit system, yet don't complain about corporate tax dodging which costs the country wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more.

Again, American stats since they're always by far the easiest to find, street crime in 2002 accounted for 14 billion dollars in damage, corporate crime, 220 billion. Those numbers might not be bang on as i'm doing it from memory, but considering the size of the difference that's not really important.

However i'm going to refrain from this post. I've been trying to avoid getting into political arguments on the internet, but have slipped. I've learned a few things from my foruming, one, in perhaps 1 out of 100 arguments someones opinion on the subject will change, the other 99 will just have people yelling at each other and acting in disbelief that the other person doesn't see things their way. It's not worth stressing over.

I've also read this book oob. It's definately got a distinct right wing/libertarian slant (them being Chicago economists and all that) but some of the stuff they say is interesting. In an ideal world, i'd agree with them, but we don't live in an ideal world, people arent born with equal opportunities so we have to adopt some sort of social welfare system.
The abortion thing was very very interesting indeed. I cant make up my mind whether its ethical or not to abort on the grounds that it will reduce the crime rate and therefore government spending. I mean, thats a good thing, but I guess theres a female thing stopping me from saying that its right.
The drug dealers live with their moms section was also pretty interesting. I think, particularly in america, the drug dealing industry is almost in sync with their society, with the few at the top getting all the wealth and most people being screwed over by it. But its interesting that the dealers keep in the industry cos of the incentive of getting to the top.
One thing the book proves is that humans respond to incentives, and I think that any respectable government should build an economic and social model that encompasses this.

As for the disability issue. I don't really care about what you said, but you are implying that I shouldnt have been born (as I'm disabled, and have cost the british government money) and that my mum should have been sterilised. I'm not too bothered cos I've had this debate before, but bear in mind that there are some people that could be upset by it.

Well I would expect that in future state sponsored genetic engineering/screening of all children would make the concept of sterilisation a moot point, so it's probably not worth implementing any significant form of eugenics given that we can expect GE to solve the problem for us sometime in the near future. Indeed, I would expect that it will eventually be a crime to have a child born with a genetically inherited illness, which would effectively be a form of child abuse if the technology exists to stop it. A parents Luddite sympathies should not be taken into consideration when the health of a child is at stake.

'Disabled' is a grey area, almost everyone has some kind of genetic failing, for instance, I think I've been pretty fortunate genetically, but even I have a mild myopia (short sightedness). Ideally neither of us would have been born, or at least not with the exact set of genes we have. Until the technology exists to make this possible without the ethical dilemma of destroying the unborn and sterilization, I would only support eugenics where it concerns the most severe genetic illnesses... Huntingtons disease is the usual example.

Anyone who is offended by this thread can solve the problem by simply not reading it.

Here's my reply as of now:

JPAR:

The country was over populated by then. The system at the time keeps people poor due to the planned economy taking away most of a person's produce. There was also the Maoist political insanities of a hard working person being criticized for being politically lukewarm if he/she devotes too much into working. Basically, people were keep lazy and hungry.

Immediately after the Reforms, the Chinese peasantry over produced in 1980 and the excesses of food were left to rot all across the nation. By 1985, PRC living standards were well ahead of the doomed Soviet Union, all thanks to good ol' capitalism.

Basically, communism supressed hard work. Throughout the years, living standards have continued to improve as a result of the reforms. However, with over population at its highest and shows no sign of changing, many shall remain poor as a result of not having enough land or jobs in China. The system is fair in the aspect that over population generates poverty.


Back on discussions about NZ, most of the poor here had performed poorly at school, not only that, the attitude here of hard work simply does not compare to Chinese levels. Instead of keeping the beneficiaries on the couches, we need to help them find jobs. Welfare dependency is a vicious cycle. If you were paid to park your arse on the sofa all day, would you go and seek work?

Well if it isn't the Devil showing his true communist colors...

The wealthy are allowed to be wealthy because of the fruits of their labor, be it through business or other investments. If a brain surgeon is paid the same as a street sweeper (like in the communist countries), would you rather become the brain surgeon or the street sweeper? Certain jobs are higher paid than others and business is suppose to reap rewards in profits. High pay and promises of wealth can be a powerful motivation, which the communists do not prefer as they believe that it deviates peoples from following their insanities. Let the successes of the wealthy serve as an inspiration for us all.

Of all the talk of social equality, the communists prefer a sliding tax system. In my opinion, everyone who is able to afford paying taxes should pay them at the same rate. Now that's equality! Surely, no amount of money is enough (greed is a good motivation for hard work) and it is this belief that is the drive for success. If business isn't rewarding, would there still be business?

If we're to have absolute social equality, you might as well have every man walk around in the raw with their peckers trimmed to a standard length... (Going back to that sick penises analogy you've created.)

You've walked right into the propaganda of the communist bastards!

I would like to point out that I'm more important than a commerce student. Also, I prefer to commit executions by firearms; hanging gives the convict too much pleasure.

Street crimes involve violence and physical harm. The victims shall recover slowly, sometimes with psychological scars. Corporate crimes are usually well covered (because the white collar criminals are generally smarter than their street counterparts). Persecution is based on evidence and conviction; the lack of intellect amongst the street criminals is one reason why their crimes are solved easier.

It also depends on the sort of corporate crimes, swindling for example can ruin people's lives for many years; such crimes are serious and must never be tolerated. Tax evasion is an unpatriotic act that should also be stamped out with efficient brutality (tax evasion over a certain amount in China can result in death or life imprisonment). Nonetheless, corporate crimes are usually felonies, this does not mean that street crimes should be avoided and criminals be given stays in five-star hotels (like most of the prisons in the West).

Oob:

Did I not make that clear enough?

A-fuckin'-men to that!

I totally disagree. There is a reason why we have social welfare implemented directly by the State: that is because the free market and the private sector are not efficient in the fair distribution of goods, and are extremely inefficient at fostering long term economic development among the poor. Indeed, abandoning a welfare state leads you to having much higher rates of infant mortality, children growing up in poverty, large numbers of homeless, social breakdown and huge stratification of society along class lines. i.e. Destroying welfare states destroys modern society.

Jpar's comment is too true:

Wealth distribution, measured by the gini coefficient (which Hannoir if no one else should know :P), has hugely changed in New Zealand since Roger Douglas and then Ruth Richardson destroyed our economy in the 80s and 90's. I believe our gini coefficient was at 0.2 in the early 1980s (it's on a scale from 0 to 1: 0 being the most equal, 1 being total inequality), and that it's slid to about .4 by the late 90's. That means wealth inequality DOUBLED in the space of a decade.

Why was that? Because we eroded our welfare state, we chucked the poor out on the streets from state-houses, we cut back pensions, we privatised businesses that provided vital work for huge sectors of New Zealand society (particularly in provincial and rural New Zealand) with the Foresty Corporation, the Post Office Corporation, New Zealand Steel..

All of this for what? A crazy free-market ideology that owes no national allegaince, feels no pride for average New Zealanders, an ideology that paints the poor as lazy and undeserving of upward mobility, and the obsession with policies that will only help the richest of capitalists via things like lowering taxes, selling off more state assets to corporate raiders, and such like.

It's good to see you're publicly supporting a sliding tax scale JPAR, and it's a fucking embarrasment that there is not more pride in the fact that a graduated income tax is a great thing to help society develop in a fair manner.

That is incorrect. Bill Gates was born into a wealthy family. Steve Forbes was born into a wealthy family. The Sultan of Brunei was born into a wealthy family. George Bush was born into a wealthy family. Bill Clinton was born into a wealthy family. John F Kennedy was born into a wealthy family. Reagan was born into a wealthy family. Bob Jones was born into a wealthy family. Roger Kerr was born into a wealthy family.

So what the fuck are you talking about? Wealth is rarely anything to do with work: working fulltime in a job that pays you 12 dollars an hour is not going to get you moving upward socially, nor in long term wealth.

Why should we respect the horrendously wealthy if they are born into wealthy families? Why should I respect someone who earns 500,000 a year yet votes for the ACT party out of pure greed, in that they want to grasp more of their 'hard-earned' cash to pay for cocaine to sniff off hooker's breasts?

When you are looking for efficiency (remember, I was using the cold hearted perspective) then fair distribution isn't what you want to achieve.

It's all well and good to list who came from a wealthy family, but that doesn't make the being wealthy obtainable by birthright alone. It's most definitely a mixture. If you ask yourself why some of these familys are wealthy you'll see that their ancestors earned it.

Oprah was not born into a rich family. Larry Page was not born into a rich family. James Fletcher was not born into a rich family. J. K. Rowling was not born into a rich family. Larry Ellison was not born into a rich family. This list becomes extremely easy once I start talking about musicians and actors e.g. Jay Z, Eminem, Madonna, Olsen Twins. Listing names like this is pointless, because there will always be counters on each side.

As I pointed out, efficiency involves a wide variety of things. Efficiency takes into account exogenous factors, because how is something efficient where the social cost of the production actually makes the production of the item inefficient? It is not efficient to produce ten thousand shitty cars that no one will ever buy, because of the social reaction. Thus, the social reaction is part of a market based examination of public policy like that.

With regard to the list of wealthy, I was just pointing out to Adolf, using very high profile American and New Zealand examples that he will most likely know, that his blanket comment:

James Fletcher deserves praise, because as a wealthy man, he hugely contributed to New Zealand. Larry Ellison too has been quite involved with solid community causes, and Larry Page pioneered one of the greatest information repositories of the information age aside from Wikipedia. But yes, I agree it is irrelevant. What is important is highlighting there are both sides to wealth, in that there are those who deserve it, and those who don't. A good balance is taxing the fucking hell out of people who earn a lot more money than they need even for excessive luxuries.

Actually if you want to justify high taxes on the rich you're forgetting the best argument for it: to build a financial empire, you need the social structures to support it. The aforementioned rich people could not have gotten their millions without the education, infrastructure, etc. that is provided by a society that levies income taxes. No one on their own has ever made a million dollars.

Because they have benefitted the most from what society provides, in that it has (along with their own efforts and talent) allowed them to become so wealthy, they should pay more than others.

OTOH, the rich must not be taxed so highly that they will seek to keep their wealth from the hands of the state (although this is always going to happen to some extent), and of course they do indeed deserve the lions share of the money if they are the ones who created the fortune.

In taxes on the rich, as in many other areas, a balance must be met, which is further left than unfettered capitalism and further right than pure "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" style communism... both are ridiculous notions and have been proven so numerous times.