Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Cafe Hayek (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Quotation of the Day…

Monday, October 17, 2016 5:46
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

… is from pages 107-108 of Anthony de Jasay’s 1995 article “On Redistribution” as this article is reprinted in the 2002 collection of some of de Jasay’s writings, Justice and Its Surroundings (original emphasis; footnote deleted):

No one has, to my knowledge, explained why redistribution stopping well short of strict, universal equality should appease the less privileged if they were not appeased to start with.  If history teaches anything, it is the opposite.  More often than not, concessions have only incited the recipients, sensing that the other party was on the run, to demand more concessions.  If this were not so, concessions would not almost invariably turn out to be “too little, too late.”  Complete breakdowns in bargaining, ranging from deadlock to revolution, are usually proceeded (can we say “brought about”) not by unyielding resistance from the outset, but by a series of piecemeal concessions coming eventually to a halt.  What little we know of revolutions does not suggest that distributional conflict and class conflict can be best understood in terms of commercial bargaining, as depicted in the economist’s apparatus of a Pareto-superior contract curve of mutual advantage.

Once we violate the principle against allowing Jones or his agents to seize some of Smith’s stuff – even if the proffered justification for violating this principle is that Smith has a great deal more stuff than Jones has – there is no principle on which to ground either resistance to Jones’s efforts to seize even more of Smith’s stuff or Smith’s efforts to seize some of Williams’s stuff – or, even Smith’s efforts later, when the political tides shift (as they always do), to seize some of Jones’s stuff.  The high importance of this principle against taking other people’s stuff is one reason why I oppose proposals for minimum-income guarantees.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.