|
Isn't that the case for anyone? Isn't there always someone out there with a sob story that can top yours? If we're going to allocate resources based on who has "sacrificed the most" (...for what? and what algorithm should be used to quantify the sacrifice?), it seems that all the resources will ultimately flow down to the most self-sacrificial individuals in the area. As these people are extremely self-sacrificial (and it will be hard to find such selfless people, because they are unlikely to talk about how selfless they are), they will then spend all of the money immediately, for the good of those around them who need access to more resources. Then we will give them more resources to re-spend, yes? How will the self-sacrificial people manage all of the services and goods they're procuring, or are they so self-sacrificial that they wouldn't ask for an exchange when transferring the resources? Perhaps these people are the new banks, but interest free? If they become interested in saving some resources for themselves, to compensate for their efforts in distributing the resources of the society, are they automatically disqualified from possessing the resources, since someone less selfish now probably exists? Incidentally, in these types of systems, the parties most deserving of resources have a mysterious tendency to be the people who've set up the economic system and their close associates. Who can argue that the founders of a new fair system of resource allocation are not the most deserving and self-sacrificial? These revolutionaries broke the oppressive chains of the bourgeoisie. They fought, killed, and died, and they watched their family and friends die, for the good of the nation. They beheaded the dirty rich kids who thought they should eat cake while others starved. Those brave souls, who at least metaphorically did all this for the good of the millions of innocents whom they would never meet, and the sage councils and carefully-chosen successors that protect their legacy, are surely the most self-sacrificial in any society. It is only right that these persons should collect all the resources and wisely distribute them. You would not suggest that your efforts are comparable, and thus deserving of their resources, would you? |