[ColanR]

> Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources.

How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'.

Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend. I trust them a lot less than I trust a rich philanthropist.

[zpallin]

That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it.

Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason.

All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth.

Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.

[logicchains]

There's a huge difference. Kings and dictators get power through war and violence. Musk got rich through making and selling things people want. Surely you see the difference between war and commerce.

[zpallin]

Well actually no. Kings and Dictators also gain power by being opportunistic in the same way as Musk. They begin by amassing social power, and then at the right moment they take over. See the Medici family of Florence, or the East India Company. War is not the only means for domination.

Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender."

Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.

[DuskStar]

> Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.

I think you're horribly twisting the meaning of Ford's words there. It doesn't mean "ignore what people want", it means to figure out what they actually want. People didn't want faster horses, they wanted better transport - "faster horses" was just how they expressed that.

[zpallin]

I think you're horribly twisting my words. I didn't mean that at all. I meant exactly what you wrote and there really isn't anything there for you to accuse me of otherwise.

[noahth]

No thanks! The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others. Everyone deserves an equal say in the allocation of resources. It pains me to say that this must include even those who are willing to exploit other people to amass resources.

[logicchains]

By what reasoning does someone deserve a say in the allocation of something they made no contribution to producing? How would you feel if somebody came to your house, ate your food and slept on your bed, because they felt they deserved a say in how those resources were allocated?

[DuskStar]

> The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others

Citation very much needed. I'd say "luck given the presence of opportunity and ability", perhaps - but luck alone is certainly not enough. (Or else why do lottery winners do so poorly?)

As for "the willingness to exploit others", is this universally true? Are performers exploiting their audiences? Companies their customers? Their workers? Their vendors?

I think that would be trivially true for some definitions of "exploit", but that is not the definition of exploit that most people would tend to think of.

[AlexandrB]

> in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'.

This makes the huge assumption that "the market" is already equitably rewarding talent with money. It is not. Luck, heritage (inherited wealth and power), and race/gender all skew how much you can amass and the effects are exponential, not linear.

[DuskStar]

That might still result in a better mapping of resources to ability than dividing resources equally among the population, though.

[wycy]

That's what we have now. The more resources (money) you have, the more say (speech) you get. Citizens United.

[hnhg]

Isn't that what lobby groups do anyway? Seems like this is somewhat covered by the current political system.

[tangent128]

How is the ability to amass resources relevant to competence in determining the appropriate allocation?

That's like saying that winning a game makes you competent to referee it.

[logicchains]

You amass resources by investing (allocating) them well. If you invest poorly, you lose what you invested. Over time, the person who invested best will have the most resources.

[hedvig]

His dad somehow obtained rights to mines in Africa, you're going to tell me he "figured out how to make a ton of money" with that kind of start?

[rtkwe]

> it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend

The rules they run by are created by your elected representatives.