|
I'd go even further: First, consider the distribution of wealth based on consequences of birth, which is pure luck: Race, gender, socioeconomic class of parents, parental 'skill' (care, skill development, investment in your upbringing, etc.), and location (e.g. Silicon Valley, rural North Dakota, or North Korea?). Where and to whom you were born is highly determinative of economic success, but clearly it is 100% luck and not skill. Also consider how much of success is due to others. Consider Walmart, for a simple example. How much of the following did Sam Walton build himself?: * Infrastructure: Roads, train tracks, airports, etc. for transporting the goods he sells * The technology of that infrastructure: Who invented and developed automobiles, trains, airplanes, refrigeration, electric lighting (so logistics can operate at night), conveyor belts, electrical generation and distribution, IT, etc. * The development of the human resources: The education that makes his workers literate and skilled to do their jobs: The schools, the teachers, the concepts, the textbooks, pencils, chalkboards ... we could even say language, mathematics, etc. * The system of laws and government that protect his business and allow it to operate efficiently (e.g., via contracts, dispute resolution, etc.). That's just a small sample of what Walmart depends on, that Sam Walton did nothing to provide. Sam Walton, and many others, built something very impressive and far more than probably anyone reading this, but it amounts to a sliver on top of a massive infrastructure built up by generations before him. He, like the rest of us, needs to contribute his share and build for the next generation, just like all who came before him. |
Since the results of the process (birth and rearing) cannot, in a free society, be taken away from an individual and used to benefit others, then what might you propose as a socially acceptable solution? Perhaps a "white man's tax" to be paid by all men/women lucky enough to be born white? Or, to generalize, a "race tax" to be paid by all based on the current social or economic status of each race in the society? Perhaps a tax to be paid by anyone lucky enough to gain entrance to an Ivy League school (or Stanford) and so forth.
2. Concerning your second argument (success due to others):
This argument was presented by Obama in his "...you didn't build that..." speech of July 13, 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn't_build_that
3. However, in summary, both arguments, although well taken and each worthy of discussion in it's own right, are clearly not the same as the findings that Bouchard & Mezard et al present.
Furthermore it is important to distinguish them from Bouchard & Mezard's. Merging these arguments together with Bouchard & Mezard's in public discussion would erroneously conflate all these arguments and weaken the impact of Bouchard & Mezard's findings.